Society tends to observe almost any mistake of parents as reasons to remove children.
24/7 surveillance of children is an unreasonable expectation. Yet if there is any lapse observed, no matter how minor, it's an investigative offense. There is little understanding for parents. Not many people are parents these days, and if they are frequently they only have experience with one or two children in a world where every child can be quite different.
When CFS shows up, you are mostly at the mercy of the org. I've called attorneys and they kind of throw their hands up with a "not much they can do attitude". There isn't much due process except what exists internally to the org. When they make mistakes there is effectively no recourse except going public and shaming them in the media - which is not generally effective BTW.
Which brings is to harm. Removing a child from a home can be life altering dramatic. Yet they can do it without judicial oversight. The places they put them aren't guaranteed to be superior. Even if a child experiences some abuse they may also experience love in a home. Foster homes are also actually more likely to be places of abuse - https://www.focusforhealth.org/sex-abuse-and-the-foster-care...
So the metaphor that comes to mind is you are potentially removing a child from a pan, maybe not even a hot pan, and likely throwing them into a fire. To make that step you had better make 100% certain in triplicate that you are correct. And that bar is not met by the current system.
I'm not really sure how to convey a lifetime of experience as a parent and personal dealings DCFS and what is and isn't good for children. Children are, nearly universally, better off with their actual parents if those parents want them. Even when those parents demonstrate pretty egregious failings. Unless there is really solid proof of physical danger to their life directly from the parents or sexual abuse, it should be hands off.
The foster system just isn't good enough to justify anything else.
Yeah 99% of people that complain about other peoples child. If you actually turn around and tell them you'll sign over the adoption to them and you just need the countersignature, they would shit bricks. They want all the veto rights with none of the personal responsibility -- the essence of entitlement.
> Society tends to observe almost any mistake of parents as reasons to remove children.
This really varies from location to location (and definitely varies based on race/ethnicity and culture of parents). Where I am there is such a shortage of foster-homes that they really push for in-home services over removing the child.
The only near-universal thing that will get a child removed is if the child themselves directly report physical abuse.
> Which brings is to harm. Removing a child from a home can be life altering dramatic.
Agreed; if the child wasn't traumatized before being removed from their home, they definitely are afterwards.
> Even if a child experiences some abuse they may also experience love in a home.
In my experience neglect is actually far worse for the child than physical abuse (though it's not like abuse is sunshine and rainbows). Each child is different, but given a child who was beaten for minor infractions and a child who was often left strapped in a car-seat for an entire day with a sippy-cup and a box of cereal, I'd wager on the latter having more issues.
Sexual abuse has its own, separate set of issues that this margin is too narrow to contain...
> This really varies from location to location (and definitely varies based on race/ethnicity and culture of parents). Where I am there is such a shortage of foster-homes that they really push for in-home services over removing the child.
Let me distinguish CFS desires from society. I've lived in well to do areas to poor areas to relatively lawless areas in the United States. In all of them, with some variance (rich are the worst), you will get reported for the smallest of infractions.
A few of my personal least favorites. Feeding your child goat milk (I kid you not). For a 2 year old toddler who dislikes clothes stripping while outside while parents chase them down. For having a child home during school hours, like ever. Letting a sleeping child sit in a car's car seat for 30 seconds to go back into a building/house for a small item.
Just the tiniest of perceived infractions and it's a report.
Then there are the falsified revenge-reports. Gas company did bad work and they had to come out and fix it, revenge report an unsuitable state of the house. Neighbors don't like xxx... Etc...
CFS doesn't care about all of this. Sometimes they do some of it. But this is often what kind of stuff is in their dossiers.
> In my experience neglect is actually far worse for the child than physical abuse
I generally agree here. And parents are far more likely to shove a phone or tablet at their kids than spend a few hours listening to them and their joys and concerns. You just can't fix this with an outside agency.
> it shouldn't be a secret that foster homes are the most dangerous homes for kids.
Most families are good to their children. Foster homes only get the worst: most kids never go to a foster home. That means kids that are harder than normal to care for and thus their parents are also also going to get frustrated (in fact they often have: many kids in foster homes the parents just need a break), and in turn means the foster parents will face the situations where they are more likely to lose their temper in a bad way - but the real parents have likely done the same. There are also kids who are abused by their parents, and that abuse is likely to make those kids worse than normal kids.
As a parent I can assure you that taking care of normal kids is hard. I know other foster parents: enough to know that foster kids are even harder. Most foster parents are doing the best they can, but the job is a lot harder than normal kids.
Most foster families are loving, but it's interesting to note in these situations where the parent/guardian is paid from outside the household for the children (foster or child support) we see increased rates of abuse. Correlation does not imply causation but there seems to be a heavy correlation between being paid for the child and abuse.
These agencies were instituted on public demand to reduce abuse at a societal level, and their missions were constituted with those harms in mind - hence the obviousness of those agencies being vital, at least at the time when they were instituted, with plenty of evidence back then for their necessity [1]. If they are no longer meeting those mission parameters and causing more harm than good, then we should demand evidence for that as well, should we not?
Anecdotal, but I think I mentioned our kids were adopted. We adopted through the State, and underwent 6 months of training before being approved.
The stories of abuse and neglect were hair raising, and our kids had their own fair share before they came to us.
CPS exists as an alternative to cops doing this kind of work. When done right, they are compassionate and understand how to deal with kids in a variety of sm high stress situations. They do evaluations. They take kids out of homes safely. They do transport to foster care or elsewhere. They evaluate potential adoptive families.
When all done right. We know some fabulous workers doing incredibly hard work here.
We also know it’s easy to abuse the system, and they could use a lot more checks and balances.
Evidence to back what 'seems'? GP was effectively asking for evidence; your response is to ask for evidence that it's not 'obvious' and that they need evidence?
Do you have any evidence to back this statement?