These kinds of stories are truly wild to me - my kids are pretty much free range and have been since they were 7 or 8. We've never had an issue.
That said though, it's easy to imagine how quickly things could become problematic if some busybody decided they wanted to make trouble. You do not want CPS involved with your family - full stop.
I don't really know what the right thing to do is if you do have CPS show up - at first blush it seems like a "never talk to the police" type of situation where hypothetically the right play is to absolutely refuse to play ball and involve a lawyer immediately.
It's a whole can of worms to take that stand though. Do you just let Umbridge into your house and hope that the quick look around is enough to close the case? Or do you recognize you're dealing with an Umbridge and not take the chance?
That kind of tough call for parents probably does mean that the right play is to try to ensure your state has reasonable legislation about these sorts of things.
(what a drag!)
alphazard · 4h ago
> Do you just let Umbridge into your house and hope that the quick look around is enough to close the case? Or do you recognize you're dealing with an Umbridge and not take the chance?
In the US at least, you absolutely do not give consent for anyone from the government to come into your house. It can only hurt you. Call the police and tell them someone is trespassing. Call your lawyer and explain the situation.
Children should know it is inappropriate for adults they don't know to ask for details about their home life. Any adult acting in good faith will always make it easier for a child to contact their parents without negotiation. "Yes you can use my phone" is the only acceptable response. No "come over here first", no "let's talk about where your parents are".
throw0101c · 4h ago
> Call your lawyer and explain the situation.
How many people 'have' a lawyer?
aaronbaugher · 4h ago
You don't need to have a lawyer on retainer, but you should probably at least have the name and phone number of one you could call in a pinch. Most law-abiding folks aren't going to see that moment coming, so having a phone number handy could make it a lot less stressful. And in a case like this, it will show the apparatchik at your door that you're not going to be an easy pushover.
theturtle · 2h ago
That's right up there with "ask your doctor..."
sevensor · 4h ago
What’s missing in this discussion is the neighbor. This isn’t just about CPS, it’s about there being someone in the neighborhood twisted enough to call down state authority on the parents for no particularly good reason. Most people don’t have this kind of interaction with CPS because most people don’t live next to informers. But some people do, and the informer makes things terrible for them.
Edit, which on second reading, you do mention. “Some busybody” is a big part of the problem.
DiabloD3 · 4h ago
The correct path of action would be, if you have children, to have the correct kind of lawyer on retainer already. This is the unfortunately reality we have.
You do not speak with the police, you calmly but firmly inform them that they can return with a warrant if they think there is something actionable.
You then proceed legal action against the false reporter. Sometimes all you can get is a no contact order, sometimes you can get a stalking injunction, sometimes a full blown restraining order. This is why you want a lawyer ahead of time, they know how to deal with this.
theturtle · 2h ago
That doesn't work as well in areas where people can make anonymous reports. Even where callers can't be anonymous, a lawyer would be needed to get the name of the caller; they don't just hand it out to the subject of the complaint. Couple that with frequent requirements that even obviously-bogus complaints be officially investigated, and it's a shitshow built for busybodies.
DiabloD3 · 1h ago
From what I've seen, in areas that you can make anonymous reports, the cops don't do anything. For example, judges generally won't issue warrants just because an anonymous phone call claimed something.
Again, don't let a cop into your house unless they have the magical piece of paper called a warrant.
bombcar · 4h ago
You have to decide if you think that (in general) they're "good with some bad apples" or "the whole thing is rotten to the core".
If it's the first, on first contact you assume they're generally good-willed, and play the part of the concerned parent, and find something obvious and physical that can be added and verified (a fence, say, or a lock, or alarm, depending on what occurred). Try to sus out how the report occurred.
If it's the second, move. Move out of their district or out of their state. You're already fucked, so your best option is to run.
potato3732842 · 4h ago
The fact that even good people with nothing to hide speaks volumes about these government institutions but what it says about the people who blindly peddle them could fill libraries.
This isn't just for CPS, for all sorts areas of government.
soco · 4h ago
There's a similar institution in Switzerland - the KESB - and it has its own horror stories. It's a matter of canton and of persons involved, but you get from their activity the whole range: from perfect and ideal support (which is of course the very reason KESB exists) to mafia-style trafficking (kids are systematically placed away by the same persons, to cash in government payments). Such an institution needs both professional and judiciary supervision in order to not depend on one individual's ethics - and KESB has neither.
qualeed · 5h ago
>During that visit, I was told that children could never be left alone, inside or outside the home—EVEN IN THEIR OWN BEDROOMS—until they were 13 years old. Social Services said specifically that I had to be in each room with them at all times until they were 13.
This must be a mistake from the CPS agent, surely? For one, it's obviously absurd (you'd get a CPS call if they found out you were "supervising" your 12 year old in the bathroom or while changing), but secondly (and I might be mistaken), in most places I've looked at/known people/lived in, you are allowed to privately babysit at the age of 12.
In any case, this whole thing is a bit too rage-inducing for a Monday morning read.
SilverElfin · 4h ago
No it’s not a mistake. Search social media and you’ll find lots of reports like these. CPS will create absurd and unrealistic rules like the ones you name, specifically because they know no parent will meet those standards and it lets them get involved. If they bring police, the police will simply back up their rules even though they know it’s absurd. The type of people who work in CPS are often unhinged types already, and they do this to justify their existence on the taxpayer’s dime.
Just remember you don’t need to talk to them or let them into your home. Anything you say or they see is evidence they can use against you. Force them to go get a court order or warrant.
jimt1234 · 3h ago
> Just remember you don’t need to talk to them or let them into your home.
IANAL, but my understanding of CA law is that it's more complicated than that:
1. Just like the police, they can only go in without a warrant if they have a reasonable belief that there is imminent danger to a child. They must have a specific thing in mind, not just "vibes." Bringing your child to the door to show them they are fine would often be sufficient to quash that (but you can't do that if your child isn't home).
2. Refusing to be interviewed by CPS and/or denying them access to your children can be used against you in family court (unlike when you are being interrogated by the police).
> If there is no warrant and no emergency and you do not want to allow the investigator in your home, you can say something like, “Sorry, this isn’t a good time for me, but I’d be happy to schedule a visit on a later date.” By offering an alternative date like the next day or later in the week, you can plan to be more prepared for a visit, but also show cooperation. If you refuse any visit, that can be used as evidence against you later in the investigation. Depending on the situation, follow-up visits can take place either at home or the CPS office.
potato3732842 · 4h ago
Government as an institution suffers from the same staffing problem that homelessness does.
The good ones are up and out.
darth_avocado · 4h ago
I was able to walk to the corner store and make purchases/transactions that my parents sent me for at the age of 8. These people are out of their minds if they want constant supervision inside the house until the age of 13.
alpaca128 · 5h ago
Also it sounds a bit challenging to be in multiple rooms at once and without sleep.
fencepost · 4h ago
She was immediately upset that they were talking back to her and asked if she was going to have to "call the police and get your parents in trouble." This obviously scared the children, and they began to walk home, in tears. Meanwhile, I was standing at the kitchen window watching the kids talk to a neighbor, not understanding what was happening until I saw one child visibly upset. I immediately walked out of the house, and the neighbor (who, coincidentally, is a social worker) drove off without speaking to me about her concerns.
At that point I'd be approaching both the police and this 'social worker's' employer and complaining about her threatening my children.
jvanderbot · 5h ago
Not saying this is the case, but sometimes, if CPS is involved in an inane-sounding investigation, it's because they were involved before in a less-inane investigation. A person with a history of neglect can _say_ they were adopting a free range parenting style, but if they had a kid die in a hot car two years ago, you can understand how CPS would watch more closely.
I saw an article floating around about a couple that were prosecuted for letting their child cross a street alone to go to a store, but it was actually a highway and one of their other kids had died on that highway a few years ago.
Having been involved in the foster care system before, I can tell you, no parent believes they were doing anything wrong, ever. They almost all exclusively believe they were being unfairly targeted for past transgressions or unfair accusations. That happens, but given how everyone says that, it's not a good signal.
Yes, this may not be the case in this article, or even in most cases, but it is something to consider about human nature.
bobthepanda · 5h ago
Is that the fault of the parent, or is the state trying to cover up incredibly bad transportation and land use planning? Kids should just be able to walk to stores without getting hit by cars.
It is basically crazy how car obsession has turned America into such an unsafe place for children, and the statistics show it;
> In 1969, 48 percent of children 5 to 14 years of age usually walked or bicycled to school. In 2009, 13 percent of children 5 to 14 years of age usually walked or bicycled to school.
You can complain all you want about land allocation, but when there are 2 tons vehicles going 100+ Kmh/h somewhere and it's closed to pedestrian you don't let your kid got there. Period.
Similarly, if they are reintroducing wolves and grizzlis in a forest near you, and they close it off for trails etc, you don't organize a weekend camping trip there.
Sometimes it's about common sense, stop blaming "society and the government" for your inability to function as a reasonable human being.
normalaccess · 4h ago
Bingo. What happened to teaching your kids to not play in the street?
Gud · 1h ago
When I grew up we used to play in the streets all the time.
normalaccess · 25m ago
Well, they are for cars. So play at your own risk.
I played in the streets and rode my bike every summer day (still do just not as much). But I also knew that 2000lbs of steel traveling at 30mph is not going to stop for me so my life was in my hands and I needed to be vigilant.
jacquesm · 16m ago
> Well, they are for cars.
That's a mistake, I think. They are for traffic and that includes kids, adult pedestrians, people on bikes, people with dogs, mopeds, and yes, cars. And as the driver of one of those you have a responsibility towards all those lesser protected members of society.
IMTDb · 55m ago
How many hours did you spend playing on the highway ?
jvanderbot · 4h ago
this is a matter of opinion, but ...
Yes, streets should be safer.
No, that does not mean we should just let everyone act like they are safe, when we all know they are not.
ta1243 · 4h ago
The more cycling on a street, the safer the street. The causation is in that direction.
jvanderbot · 4h ago
We've departed far afield from the topic of conversation if we're talking about adding bikes to make streets safer.
porridgeraisin · 5h ago
Is that stat accounting for distance to school? I.e is it comparing within the same distances(ranges of)?
estearum · 4h ago
You’re describing the same problem. The distance is the issue. This is the result of decisions we’ve made and that we can unmake.
porridgeraisin · 4h ago
In that case, is there data that shows people walking to schools when it is sufficiently close to them? If not, then distance is not a relevant factor, and some other things like civil unsafety can be looked at as potential reasons.
estearum · 4h ago
You're asking for data that shows that people walk to schools when they're close? Seems self evident that if you're half a block from school 0% of people will drive and if you're 15 miles from a school, 100% of people will drive.
But okay...
Distance and traffic danger (also a function of urban planning decisions) are by far the strongest predictor of whether kids walk to school.
not if there are other factors e.g lack of civil safety.
But yes, the data does show that most things are held relatively equal when grouping reasons into <1mile and >1mile. So distance seems to be the clear factor. Nice article.
mschuster91 · 4h ago
> Kids should just be able to walk to stores without getting hit by cars.
The problem specifically for stores is, small classic mom'n'pop stores cannot compete with big retailers like Walmart, Costco and whatnot - they simply cannot get even close to the scale of purchase that the big ones do, and so people prefer to use cars to get to a big retailer because it is more economical.
InitialLastName · 4h ago
It's not just purchasing scale that prevents smaller businesses from competing; the infrastructure that supports those big box stores is heavily subsidized at the municipal, state, inter-corporate and federal levels in a way that is unattainable for local businesses.
potato3732842 · 4h ago
It's not that it's subsidized so much as that 1-500k of hoop jumping makes financial sense when your goal is to turn a forested lot on the side of the highways into a Costco or Target or some other Mecca for people with lots of money to spend.
The amount of hoop jumping is the same if you're putting in a family mini golf with a restaurant and bumper cars. But you'll never make it back so the development never happens...
InitialLastName · 2h ago
Municipalities and states frequently offer tax abatements, pay to build the road and utility infrastructure to the middle of nowhere, and rebate sales taxes in ways that they never would for even a non-brand-name store, much less a store that could fit in the middle of the town.
aaronbaugher · 2h ago
True. My town did that for Walmart 30 years ago, and recently did it again for Amazon. Meanwhile, small businesses that have served the area for decades get no breaks.
They also tried to stick a massive apartment building in a nice nearby residential neighborhood to house the cheap workers Amazon will bring in, but the residents caught wind of it and managed to get it stopped. For now.
abbycurtis33 · 5h ago
It's the size of an empire, there are going to be highways.
bobthepanda · 4h ago
America is pretty unique in that highways plow through urban and suburban areas with few safe crossings.
Urban arterial roads (not quite streets, not quite interstates or grade separated freeways) account for half of all crashes in the US.
themaninthedark · 4h ago
I think CPS system is just broken: there are well intentioned people there but also busybodies that enjoy power but between the two, you end still end up with horrific cases of kids dying from neglect with multiple reports.
>"He would come and get a drink of water and then he would casually take his cup and throw it in the trash that was there where they dump their trays. And then you would see him digging through the garbage," Davis said. "At that point, if the little kid is hungry, I'm going to buy his lunch ticket."
>Davis said she and a co-worker started paying for Gavin's lunch, despite being "advised" by school officials not to do so because the school wanted to encourage families in hardship to fill out a form for reduced or free lunch.
Teachers and admin are mandatory reporters...
>Over the course of several months, Davis said she and other cafeteria workers made multiple calls to school officials and the Utah Division of Child and Family Services to report their concerns.
>"First we went through the channels. The head lunch lady knew what was going on. She said the principal had to take care of it. We reported it to the principal," Davis said, adding that later they also called DCFS directly.
I looked for follow up but aside for the parents being rightfully charged, what was done regarding the system? Anyone fired for not reporting? Not following up? From what I see, "It's a tragedy" and then same as before.
aidenn0 · 1h ago
I'm a former foster-parent, so have interacted with my local CWS system pretty heavily.
Don't forget that the system is made up of humans. Which social worker investigates (and how well socialized the parent is) can make a huge difference in when an intervention happens, and what the intervention is.
We had child that was removed on the very first report to CWS, after the social worker interviewed the mother and was not satisfied.
We also had a child that was removed only after the 17th report, made by a total of about half a dozen people (including every single preschool teacher), with all the reports being consistent with each other. The child was only removed because the mother was smoking meth when the CWS worker showed up. The social worker had shown up several times previously, but was satisfied after interviewing the mother.
wnevets · 4h ago
> I saw an article floating around about a couple that were prosecuted for letting their child cross a street alone to go to a store, but it was actually a highway and one of their other kids had died on that highway a few years ago.
Anyone that suggest agencies like CPS are overflowing with time and money to target random parents over minor things like letting a child cross a street isn't a serious person.
SilverElfin · 4h ago
Sorry this is false. There are tons of reports of CPS investigating normal parenting practices or imposing invasive reporting plans and things like that. CPS in most jurisdictions is in fact overflowing with time and money, and is staffed with low intelligence nosy incompetent types that couldn’t get a better job. Search your social media of choice and you’ll find so many absurd examples.
wnevets · 4h ago
> Search your social media of choice and you’ll find so many absurd examples.
This is exactly what the original commenter is talking about.
estearum · 4h ago
Anyone that suggests poor enforcement prioritization can only stem from an overflow of time and money isn’t a serious person.
darth_avocado · 4h ago
Just takes one google search to see that there are entire YouTube channels dedicated to the exact problem you claim doesn’t exist. Do bad parents exist? Yes. Do bad CPS agents exist? Also yes. Overzealous power tripping people exists in all functions of society, all the way from the guy checking receipts at the door at Walmart to the people in the highest places in the government.
wnevets · 4h ago
> Just takes one google search to see that there are entire YouTube channels dedicated to the exact problem you claim doesn’t exist.
Well if its on youtube
axus · 4h ago
CPS is legally obligated to investigate all reports of neglect. The targeting is done by the people reporting the children.
I'm not opposed to rare government intrusions into peoples lives, but there must be well-defined rules about when those intrusions happen, and what standards they are enforcing.
pc86 · 4h ago
Nobody is making that strawman of an argument. Most states give CPS very little (or no) ability to simply ignore reported child abuse. They get reports and they have to investigate.
"The local law enforcement agency is required to investigate all reports. Cases may also be investigated by Child Welfare Services when allegations involve abuse or neglect within families." [0]
Just one example, but 27 states came up in my search for where CPS has little or no latitude in choosing which allegations to investigate.
That is precisely what was happening in the examples the original commenter provided [1]. Why are you compilating CPS being legally required to investigate a report and the CPS targeting parents?
[1] they almost all exclusively believe they were being unfairly targeted for past transgressions or unfair accusations.
SilverElfin · 5h ago
This isn’t the only such instance. There have been other people who were victims of invasive CPS for kids playing in their own yard, on their own street, walking to school, biking around town, or whatever.
Parents these days are fearful to an unhealthy degree to begin with, but having to deal with CPS, who may subject you to repeated visits and bureaucratic reports or at worst take your kids away, is making the parents have even more fear of giving kids the slightest independence or hint of a real childhood.
Remember if CPS shows up at your door, you don’t need to talk to them. You can tell them firmly to get off your property and to not return. If they insist, record them, tell them to identify themselves with ID, tell them they’re trespassing and you’ll press charges, and to leave. They have no legal right to be there or speak to you without a warrant and a police officer. The point of them making you talk to them is so they can make a big deal out of SOMETHING you say or SOMETHING they see so they can do paperwork that justifies their ability to invade your life. Don’t let them. There are videos on YouTube about how to deal with them.
rokkamokka · 5h ago
Pure insanity. A world where children cannot be independent is a world where they never learn to be independent.
comrade1234 · 3h ago
You're not even allowed to bring your kids to school here in Switzerland. They have to get there on their own. Parents don't intervene in playground fights either - it's lord of the flies here.
em-bee · 16m ago
in germany a couple just lost a lawsuit against their city where the they demanded to reinstate a bus service which was closed by the city that their 7 year old had been using. the judge ruled that a 7 year old can take a train alone to go to school.
Also, my friend told me that CPS (in California) is required to investigate every call they receive, regardless of how lame it is. In fact, she said the most common calls they received are from disgruntled exes, weaponizing CPS to launch obviously bogus investigations on their former partner.
mitthrowaway2 · 5h ago
That doesn't seem like a joke to me!
theturtle · 2h ago
Little kids, or more specifically, having them, is a major way for self-important strangers to get in your shit when they have no legal right to. Plaudits to New York, which no longer accepts anonymous complaints due to their massive abuse by exes and busybodies for minimal positive result. I did not actually know Virginia actually did something useful for once (probably didn't notice because I have no children and no interest in them).
ratelimitsteve · 4h ago
The part where CPS told this person that they have to be in the room supervising each of their kids at all times even in their own bedrooms is delightfully kafkaesque. It sounds an awful lot like permission to arrest any parent or guardian at any time for alleged failure to supervise because sending your kids to bed in separate bedrooms or going to bed yourself is now legally neglect.
hermannj314 · 5h ago
Protective services helps kids get out of horrible situations and then grows tentacles to justify its existence when there aren't that many kids in horrible situations.
As a former foster parent, I was appaled and disgusted by how CPS works and how every social worker, guardian ad litem, law enforcement officer seemed more obsessed with maintaining a slow moving cash cow bureaucracy than actually building a system that helps kids.
They then use "but we are helping kids get out of horrible situations" as a shield to avoid any scrutnity or condemnation of the inefficient, ineffective leviathian of greed they participate in.
jvanderbot · 4h ago
The foster agencies are the worst. They take 3/4 the state funding per child. But AFAICT, CPS was very slow to become engaged, and always focused on giving the child back to the parent as soon as possible. So many familes get into foster care thinking they can save a child and adopt them as the defacto path. That is very much not the case, you are state sponsored babysitters.
hermannj314 · 4h ago
State sponsored babysitters?
Correct, the kid we were babysitting had an ear infection and we need parent authorization to adminster medicine. A simple phone call? Nope. The system require a lawyer, CPS, and several weeks delay at which point the kid didnt need the medicine, but we babysitter got to stay up every night for those two weeks listen to a kid cry we legally couldnt give medicine to.
We had no intention to adopt, we only wanted reconcilliation and to help kids. You seem to have a bone to pick with foster parents since you were quick to judge me and my wife's intentions.
We were glorified babysitters. Shitty, piece of shit babysitters apprently. I am glad we arent involved in that cluster fuck system anymore.
jvanderbot · 4h ago
Don't project - I had no bone to pick at all. CPS is hard to deal with because they're walking a thin line between blocking out parents and keeping kids safe from parents. And there's litigation minefields on either side. It's really the parents' game to lose, in most cases, as they have tons of rights and leeway.
dardeaup · 5h ago
It seems the CPS folks need to dial down their knee-jerk reactions a bit. Some people will still complain to them with both legitimate and non-legitimate claims. CPS folks need some training on knowing the difference.
pjmlp · 4h ago
From European point of view I cannot understand how bad things have gone in US.
To the point there are stand up comedians talking about remembering being kids during the 70's and 80's.
myflash13 · 5h ago
This story sounds like Soviet bureaucracy on its last legs. Very real impending fall-of-an-empire vibes.
ctenb · 5h ago
Is this story fiction or non-fiction? It seems utterly absurd
chuckadams · 4h ago
It's coming from reason.com so it's probably slanted to the point of fiction.
SilverElfin · 4h ago
Reason is pretty neutral and factual in my experience. They do have an ideological stance that affects which stories they cover, which is a focus on protecting people’s rights (individuals) and minimizing abuse by governments or corporations. Personally I don’t have a problem with biasing towards individual rights, or at least I appreciate that someone covers these things, as long as they’re doing so at a high quality.
staticman2 · 3h ago
Clicking around for a bit I certainly wouldn't call their article positively reporting on a proposal to eliminate social security neutral and factual.
Kapura · 4h ago
i came in here on the side of child independance, but the youngest ages involved were a lot younger than i'm comfortable with. frankly, i think that if a kid is under 4 years old, there should be an adult near-at-hand.
sealthedeal · 4h ago
I agree. I for one was riding my bike all around the neighborhood as a kid, going everywhere. I guess starting in 1st grade it was walking around apartment complex and then we got. a house in 2nd grade, and probably 3rd grade we were off on our bikes with "boundaries" our parents said we couldn't go past. A 4 year old, hell even a 6/7 year old I just couldn't trust to make a proper decision, even with older siblings around.
Also, the way this article reads, this lady just seems like a pain in the a* and clearly her neighbors do not like her. The best bet is for them to move...
s5300 · 5h ago
The best and only reasonable thing you can do to people that endanger or attempt to arrest the development of your children is to dispose of them. Calling CPS for anything but the absolute worst of cases is like telling somebody you want their kids to experience both prison rape and homelessness at the same time (this is essentially what foster kids where I’m from typically went through)
If somebody is doing it just to fuck with you or because they have some grudge against you, I don’t really know any real thing to do other than dispose of them to protect your family.
sealthedeal · 4h ago
Just reading it, I am a bit confused. I was a free range kid starting in about 1st grade. We had boundaries, but let's be honest, little boys push the limits.
Now im in my mid 30s and have my third daughter on the way. I would never let my kids go play outside in the front yard unsupervised, just for the simple fact that I don't want them getting hit by a car, the oldest is 6, and understands things, but still, that just seems neglectful.
It could be because they are girls, and im more protective, but I also just generally gauge a Childs "readiness", and I don't know many 6 year olds that I would be comfortable going to explore my neighborhood without some form of supervision.
I also generally despise the use of CPS in this way, but from what I gather, this lady seems like a pain in the a*, and her neighbors clearly do not like her, for whatever reason it is. It doesn't mean they should get CPS involved, but it's honestly shocking that this lady would continue to live in a place like this, it's pretty unreal actually.
Not sure what to make of all of this, and it reads like a very one sided piece, would be interesting to hear all the other drama that led to all of this transpiring.
qualeed · 4h ago
>but from what I gather, this lady seems like a pain in the a
I didn't get this impression at all, why do you think the lady is a pain in the ass..?
parsimo2010 · 4h ago
I have a hard time evaluating articles like this. On one hand, we all know problematic neighbors who have an unrealistic standard of something, whether it be the supervision of kids, the noise of a backyard gathering, yard/fence maintenance, etc. So we are primed to believe that the person in the story is just being unfairly persecuted. Perhaps the neighbors just called the police as soon as they saw the kids without bothering to check if the parents were anywhere nearby. Perhaps the parent was in the bathroom for a minute and the neighbors called the cops on that.
On the other hand, it is plausible that the parents were actually negligent and the kids were outside totally unsupervised, and the neighbors tried to find someone watching over the kids before calling the police. I would normally not be suspicious, but statements like, "the next door neighbors were okay with our kids playing in their yards" and, "of course my child is allowed to climb the stairs" feel a little off. Yes, neighbors will often say it is okay for kids to be on their lawns but there is usually an understanding that the parents are aware of what's going on. And it's easy to say that you allow your kids to climb the stairs, but the child in question was less than a year old. I don't know of a parent who wouldn't at least be watching over them on the front porch.
So I don't know where I land here. This story, even if true, sounds like a bad parent trying to pass this off as intrusive neighbors and government overreach. Kids can and should be allowed to roam, but there should be some appropriate limits. I experienced this first-hand as a kid. My parents were great and we had awesome families on our street. Most of the time we just roamed to various houses on the street and the parents all knew each other and it was fine. Once we rode our bikes to another town and had to ask a stranger to use their phone because we got lost- this was probably not okay, but our parents picked us up and things turned out okay. But notably, we did not get CPS called on us multiple times.
cycomanic · 4h ago
It seems like you are taking a lot of effort to create an alternative narrative. It said nowhere that the 18month year old was not supervised, in fact if that was the case why complain about the climbing stairs and not the child being unsupervised? Regarding the neighbors allowing the children to use their yard? You did notice that the letter writer points out that it was not the neighbors who own the backyard who were complaining, so why are you creating a narrative that it was their understanding that the kids would be supervised?
In my experience the stories about strangers telling the kids what they can or cannot do (as a European not part that these people would be taken seriously by cps though) seem entirely plausible both from experiences from my childhood and experiences as a parent.
There are lots of people who seem to enjoy bossing kids around. It often gets worse when kids are articulate and insist on their rights. Some people get downright aggressive if a child or teenager isn't immediately submissive.
darth_avocado · 4h ago
> It often gets worse when kids are articulate and insist on their rights
I can relate with this so much. When kids are articulate and confident, bossy adults have a such a hard time reacting appropriately, that they often result to acting like children. They then resort to telling lies, knowing fully well that the society will often take the word of an adult over that of a child.
darth_avocado · 4h ago
We can all find reasons to not believe the story but if the CPS showed up and demanded constant supervision inside the house for 12-13 year olds and there is proof for that claim, that’s all you need. “They must’ve done something wrong” is the classic case of victim blaming.
potsandpans · 4h ago
> On the other hand, it is plausible that the parents were actually negligent and the kids were outside totally unsupervised,
This stated so plainly as a rational insight is indicative of the ludicrous shift in discourse that has happened culturally.
That said though, it's easy to imagine how quickly things could become problematic if some busybody decided they wanted to make trouble. You do not want CPS involved with your family - full stop.
I don't really know what the right thing to do is if you do have CPS show up - at first blush it seems like a "never talk to the police" type of situation where hypothetically the right play is to absolutely refuse to play ball and involve a lawyer immediately.
It's a whole can of worms to take that stand though. Do you just let Umbridge into your house and hope that the quick look around is enough to close the case? Or do you recognize you're dealing with an Umbridge and not take the chance?
That kind of tough call for parents probably does mean that the right play is to try to ensure your state has reasonable legislation about these sorts of things.
(what a drag!)
In the US at least, you absolutely do not give consent for anyone from the government to come into your house. It can only hurt you. Call the police and tell them someone is trespassing. Call your lawyer and explain the situation.
Children should know it is inappropriate for adults they don't know to ask for details about their home life. Any adult acting in good faith will always make it easier for a child to contact their parents without negotiation. "Yes you can use my phone" is the only acceptable response. No "come over here first", no "let's talk about where your parents are".
How many people 'have' a lawyer?
Edit, which on second reading, you do mention. “Some busybody” is a big part of the problem.
You do not speak with the police, you calmly but firmly inform them that they can return with a warrant if they think there is something actionable.
You then proceed legal action against the false reporter. Sometimes all you can get is a no contact order, sometimes you can get a stalking injunction, sometimes a full blown restraining order. This is why you want a lawyer ahead of time, they know how to deal with this.
Again, don't let a cop into your house unless they have the magical piece of paper called a warrant.
If it's the first, on first contact you assume they're generally good-willed, and play the part of the concerned parent, and find something obvious and physical that can be added and verified (a fence, say, or a lock, or alarm, depending on what occurred). Try to sus out how the report occurred.
If it's the second, move. Move out of their district or out of their state. You're already fucked, so your best option is to run.
This isn't just for CPS, for all sorts areas of government.
This must be a mistake from the CPS agent, surely? For one, it's obviously absurd (you'd get a CPS call if they found out you were "supervising" your 12 year old in the bathroom or while changing), but secondly (and I might be mistaken), in most places I've looked at/known people/lived in, you are allowed to privately babysit at the age of 12.
In any case, this whole thing is a bit too rage-inducing for a Monday morning read.
Just remember you don’t need to talk to them or let them into your home. Anything you say or they see is evidence they can use against you. Force them to go get a court order or warrant.
Unfortunately, not in California: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40381801
1. Just like the police, they can only go in without a warrant if they have a reasonable belief that there is imminent danger to a child. They must have a specific thing in mind, not just "vibes." Bringing your child to the door to show them they are fine would often be sufficient to quash that (but you can't do that if your child isn't home).
2. Refusing to be interviewed by CPS and/or denying them access to your children can be used against you in family court (unlike when you are being interrogated by the police).
3. From the ACLU of SoCal(https://www.aclusocal.org/en/know-your-rights/california-chi...):
> If there is no warrant and no emergency and you do not want to allow the investigator in your home, you can say something like, “Sorry, this isn’t a good time for me, but I’d be happy to schedule a visit on a later date.” By offering an alternative date like the next day or later in the week, you can plan to be more prepared for a visit, but also show cooperation. If you refuse any visit, that can be used as evidence against you later in the investigation. Depending on the situation, follow-up visits can take place either at home or the CPS office.
The good ones are up and out.
At that point I'd be approaching both the police and this 'social worker's' employer and complaining about her threatening my children.
I saw an article floating around about a couple that were prosecuted for letting their child cross a street alone to go to a store, but it was actually a highway and one of their other kids had died on that highway a few years ago.
Having been involved in the foster care system before, I can tell you, no parent believes they were doing anything wrong, ever. They almost all exclusively believe they were being unfairly targeted for past transgressions or unfair accusations. That happens, but given how everyone says that, it's not a good signal.
Yes, this may not be the case in this article, or even in most cases, but it is something to consider about human nature.
It is basically crazy how car obsession has turned America into such an unsafe place for children, and the statistics show it;
> In 1969, 48 percent of children 5 to 14 years of age usually walked or bicycled to school. In 2009, 13 percent of children 5 to 14 years of age usually walked or bicycled to school.
http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/introduction/the_decline_of_...
Yes, it is.
You can complain all you want about land allocation, but when there are 2 tons vehicles going 100+ Kmh/h somewhere and it's closed to pedestrian you don't let your kid got there. Period.
Similarly, if they are reintroducing wolves and grizzlis in a forest near you, and they close it off for trails etc, you don't organize a weekend camping trip there.
Sometimes it's about common sense, stop blaming "society and the government" for your inability to function as a reasonable human being.
I played in the streets and rode my bike every summer day (still do just not as much). But I also knew that 2000lbs of steel traveling at 30mph is not going to stop for me so my life was in my hands and I needed to be vigilant.
That's a mistake, I think. They are for traffic and that includes kids, adult pedestrians, people on bikes, people with dogs, mopeds, and yes, cars. And as the driver of one of those you have a responsibility towards all those lesser protected members of society.
Yes, streets should be safer.
No, that does not mean we should just let everyone act like they are safe, when we all know they are not.
But okay...
Distance and traffic danger (also a function of urban planning decisions) are by far the strongest predictor of whether kids walk to school.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10917142/
not if there are other factors e.g lack of civil safety.
But yes, the data does show that most things are held relatively equal when grouping reasons into <1mile and >1mile. So distance seems to be the clear factor. Nice article.
The problem specifically for stores is, small classic mom'n'pop stores cannot compete with big retailers like Walmart, Costco and whatnot - they simply cannot get even close to the scale of purchase that the big ones do, and so people prefer to use cars to get to a big retailer because it is more economical.
The amount of hoop jumping is the same if you're putting in a family mini golf with a restaurant and bumper cars. But you'll never make it back so the development never happens...
They also tried to stick a massive apartment building in a nice nearby residential neighborhood to house the cheap workers Amazon will bring in, but the residents caught wind of it and managed to get it stopped. For now.
Urban arterial roads (not quite streets, not quite interstates or grade separated freeways) account for half of all crashes in the US.
>"He would come and get a drink of water and then he would casually take his cup and throw it in the trash that was there where they dump their trays. And then you would see him digging through the garbage," Davis said. "At that point, if the little kid is hungry, I'm going to buy his lunch ticket."
>Davis said she and a co-worker started paying for Gavin's lunch, despite being "advised" by school officials not to do so because the school wanted to encourage families in hardship to fill out a form for reduced or free lunch.
Teachers and admin are mandatory reporters...
>Over the course of several months, Davis said she and other cafeteria workers made multiple calls to school officials and the Utah Division of Child and Family Services to report their concerns.
>"First we went through the channels. The head lunch lady knew what was going on. She said the principal had to take care of it. We reported it to the principal," Davis said, adding that later they also called DCFS directly.
https://www.ksl.com/article/51077343/the-system-is-broken-ca...
I looked for follow up but aside for the parents being rightfully charged, what was done regarding the system? Anyone fired for not reporting? Not following up? From what I see, "It's a tragedy" and then same as before.
Don't forget that the system is made up of humans. Which social worker investigates (and how well socialized the parent is) can make a huge difference in when an intervention happens, and what the intervention is.
We had child that was removed on the very first report to CWS, after the social worker interviewed the mother and was not satisfied.
We also had a child that was removed only after the 17th report, made by a total of about half a dozen people (including every single preschool teacher), with all the reports being consistent with each other. The child was only removed because the mother was smoking meth when the CWS worker showed up. The social worker had shown up several times previously, but was satisfied after interviewing the mother.
Anyone that suggest agencies like CPS are overflowing with time and money to target random parents over minor things like letting a child cross a street isn't a serious person.
This is exactly what the original commenter is talking about.
Well if its on youtube
I'm not opposed to rare government intrusions into peoples lives, but there must be well-defined rules about when those intrusions happen, and what standards they are enforcing.
"The local law enforcement agency is required to investigate all reports. Cases may also be investigated by Child Welfare Services when allegations involve abuse or neglect within families." [0]
Just one example, but 27 states came up in my search for where CPS has little or no latitude in choosing which allegations to investigate.
[0] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/ap/childabusereportingguide.asp
That is precisely what was happening in the examples the original commenter provided [1]. Why are you compilating CPS being legally required to investigate a report and the CPS targeting parents?
[1] they almost all exclusively believe they were being unfairly targeted for past transgressions or unfair accusations.
Parents these days are fearful to an unhealthy degree to begin with, but having to deal with CPS, who may subject you to repeated visits and bureaucratic reports or at worst take your kids away, is making the parents have even more fear of giving kids the slightest independence or hint of a real childhood.
Remember if CPS shows up at your door, you don’t need to talk to them. You can tell them firmly to get off your property and to not return. If they insist, record them, tell them to identify themselves with ID, tell them they’re trespassing and you’ll press charges, and to leave. They have no legal right to be there or speak to you without a warrant and a police officer. The point of them making you talk to them is so they can make a big deal out of SOMETHING you say or SOMETHING they see so they can do paperwork that justifies their ability to invade your life. Don’t let them. There are videos on YouTube about how to deal with them.
As a former foster parent, I was appaled and disgusted by how CPS works and how every social worker, guardian ad litem, law enforcement officer seemed more obsessed with maintaining a slow moving cash cow bureaucracy than actually building a system that helps kids.
They then use "but we are helping kids get out of horrible situations" as a shield to avoid any scrutnity or condemnation of the inefficient, ineffective leviathian of greed they participate in.
Correct, the kid we were babysitting had an ear infection and we need parent authorization to adminster medicine. A simple phone call? Nope. The system require a lawyer, CPS, and several weeks delay at which point the kid didnt need the medicine, but we babysitter got to stay up every night for those two weeks listen to a kid cry we legally couldnt give medicine to.
We had no intention to adopt, we only wanted reconcilliation and to help kids. You seem to have a bone to pick with foster parents since you were quick to judge me and my wife's intentions.
We were glorified babysitters. Shitty, piece of shit babysitters apprently. I am glad we arent involved in that cluster fuck system anymore.
To the point there are stand up comedians talking about remembering being kids during the 70's and 80's.
Also, the way this article reads, this lady just seems like a pain in the a* and clearly her neighbors do not like her. The best bet is for them to move...
Now im in my mid 30s and have my third daughter on the way. I would never let my kids go play outside in the front yard unsupervised, just for the simple fact that I don't want them getting hit by a car, the oldest is 6, and understands things, but still, that just seems neglectful.
It could be because they are girls, and im more protective, but I also just generally gauge a Childs "readiness", and I don't know many 6 year olds that I would be comfortable going to explore my neighborhood without some form of supervision.
I also generally despise the use of CPS in this way, but from what I gather, this lady seems like a pain in the a*, and her neighbors clearly do not like her, for whatever reason it is. It doesn't mean they should get CPS involved, but it's honestly shocking that this lady would continue to live in a place like this, it's pretty unreal actually.
Not sure what to make of all of this, and it reads like a very one sided piece, would be interesting to hear all the other drama that led to all of this transpiring.
I didn't get this impression at all, why do you think the lady is a pain in the ass..?
On the other hand, it is plausible that the parents were actually negligent and the kids were outside totally unsupervised, and the neighbors tried to find someone watching over the kids before calling the police. I would normally not be suspicious, but statements like, "the next door neighbors were okay with our kids playing in their yards" and, "of course my child is allowed to climb the stairs" feel a little off. Yes, neighbors will often say it is okay for kids to be on their lawns but there is usually an understanding that the parents are aware of what's going on. And it's easy to say that you allow your kids to climb the stairs, but the child in question was less than a year old. I don't know of a parent who wouldn't at least be watching over them on the front porch.
So I don't know where I land here. This story, even if true, sounds like a bad parent trying to pass this off as intrusive neighbors and government overreach. Kids can and should be allowed to roam, but there should be some appropriate limits. I experienced this first-hand as a kid. My parents were great and we had awesome families on our street. Most of the time we just roamed to various houses on the street and the parents all knew each other and it was fine. Once we rode our bikes to another town and had to ask a stranger to use their phone because we got lost- this was probably not okay, but our parents picked us up and things turned out okay. But notably, we did not get CPS called on us multiple times.
In my experience the stories about strangers telling the kids what they can or cannot do (as a European not part that these people would be taken seriously by cps though) seem entirely plausible both from experiences from my childhood and experiences as a parent.
There are lots of people who seem to enjoy bossing kids around. It often gets worse when kids are articulate and insist on their rights. Some people get downright aggressive if a child or teenager isn't immediately submissive.
I can relate with this so much. When kids are articulate and confident, bossy adults have a such a hard time reacting appropriately, that they often result to acting like children. They then resort to telling lies, knowing fully well that the society will often take the word of an adult over that of a child.
This stated so plainly as a rational insight is indicative of the ludicrous shift in discourse that has happened culturally.