I also don't believe that any agency can remove kids based on unsubstantiated allegations
It's absurd, I agree, but it's true nonetheless. It's certainly something that can be researched and verified. It happens with alarming frequency. The reason is, reports of abuse are categorized into three broad disposition categories -
substantiated (founded or valid - different states use different terms),
unsubstantiated (unfounded or invalid), and
indicated (possible, probable)
- risk analysis-dependent. Childwelfare.gov (US Department of Health and Human Services, where the states get their marching cues), which is the guidelines handbook for CPS agencies, states that an investigation must take place for every report, and
"CPS staff are mandated by law to determine whether the report is substantiated or founded (meaning that credible evidence indicates that abuse or neglect has occurred) or whether the report is unsubstantiated or unfounded (meaning that there is a lack of credible evidence to substantiate child maltreatment—but does not mean it did not necessarily occur)." So even if it is unfounded, they assume that it could have occurred, anyway. If a determination is "unsubstantiated," with no credible evidence to substantiate the report, then risk-factor analysis must take place, because 'no credible evidence' is not necessarily evidence that it did not occur.
So the mindset going in is that a report will either be substantiated, or where there is a lack of evidence, they are to be skeptical that it didn't happen regardless.
"A major part of the initial assessment or investigation includes determining whether there is a risk or likelihood of maltreatment occurring in the future." So much for due process. Throwing due process out the window is written right into the process.
Risk factors that indicate maltreatment actually occurred despite no evidence for it occurring, and/or that it is likely to occur in the future, include income level, cleanliness of the residence, whether one or both parents have jobs, physical and mental health of the parent (caregiver), the parent's coping and problem solving ability, whether or not firearms are present in the home, relationships outside the home, quality of relationships inside the home, power and issues of control within the home, evidence or suspicion of substance abuse. The determine things like, does the alleged abuser show any obsession with the alleged victim? Does the alleged abuser have a criminal record? Does the alleged abuser show any signs of depression or desperation? I don't care how well trained a caseworker is, you can count on one hand how many are actually qualified to make those assessments. It's like the Wisconsin State Police being able to determine if a truck driver is fatigued if he has a TV or one-handed magazines in his bunk area.
They ask the parents questions like:
- Have you ever felt you should cut down on your drinking or drug use?
- Has a physician ever told you to cut down or quit the use of alcohol or drugs?
- Have people annoyed you by criticizing or complaining about your drinking or drug use?
- Have you ever felt bad or guilty about your drinking or drug use?
- Have you ever had a drink or drug in the morning ("eye opener") to steady your nerves or to get rid of a hangover?
- Has your drinking or drug use caused a family, job, or legal problem?
- When drinking or using drugs, have you had a memory loss or blackout?
Caseworkers are told to expect lies to every one of those questions. The questions are asked knowing they'll likely be lied to, but in order to gauge the reaction to the questions. If the reactions don't meet with the questioner's approval, the suspicion level is raised.
The most important thing that is impressed upon caseworkers is to err on the side caution, and if there is a chance, no matter how remote, that a report of abuse might be true, to assume that it is, and to then focus
"on gathering comprehensive information rather than trying to identify solutions, which is best left for later in the casework process." So right up front they're getting settled in for a long process, one that mainly consists of them justifying their actions.
- how many kids have died after CPS investigated and found insufficient cause to proceed? It's hardly rare.
It's actually quite rare. Sure, you hear on the news where some kid died despite CPS visiting the home 20 times in the past. The reason it makes news is because it rare. What doesn't make news are the kids who are perfectly fine after 20 and 30 visits, and nothing ever happens to them. The numbers in the table above show that children left in families suffer abuse far less than they do under the control of CPS. But another reason that it's rare is that they rarely find insufficient cause to proceed. 78% of reports of abuse to CPS result in the child or children being removed from the home, at least temporarily. Like I said before, removal is the first resort, not the last, because they will err on the side of maybe. That's their standard operating procedure.
In the case cited here, the facts were placed before a judge, who decided the hospital had credibility.
No, CPS decided the hospital had credibility, and the judge decided CPS had credibility. It was CPS, not the hospital, who went before the judge seeking the warrant. Judges routinely just sign off on a CPS request, because the welfare of the child is preeminent, and the rest can be sorted out later in court while the parents prove their innocence.
Maybe he was wrong - it's happened before, but I find it hard to believe that it happens all the time, everywhere, that kids are taken without sufficient reason. I believe the judge was privy to facts not shared with the public, and made a decision based upon them.
All the time, everywhere? Not all the time, everywhere, but close. It's routine. You never heard of a parent losing their child because they swatted the child on the butt in the grocery store for throwing a temper tantrum? Kids have fallen down on the playground and have been taken from their parents because the ER doctor suspected something else happened. It's then up to the parents to wrangle with the legal system to get their child back.
Foster care is a whole 'nother ball of wax: the financial reward tends to attract the kind of people who shouldn't be parenting, along with the ones who do a great job of it.
And who runs foster care? CPS.
It's a sticky problem, all the way around - but I'm afraid we do have an obligation to protect the children, same as the disabled, elderly, and sick. That's what makes us civilized.
Yeah, we do. But like I said, we're not. We're playing at it, with feel good intentions, but those intentions have had, and are having, unintended consequences that are worse than the problem to begin with. Look at the numbers. Those are the numbers direct from the US Department of Health and Human Services, not some crackpot wackadoodle Web site.
If you find this sort of thing unbelievable, or repugnant, I would encourage you to do some research on it. I've done quite a bit, but I've also had an enormous amount of it handed to me by a friend of 40 years or so who is with CPS. She was a caseworker for many years, and is now the director of CPS in my hometown. She used to work in a large city, where she says it's far worse (removing children without any real evidence) than it is here in a small town, where common sense and intelligence has the upper hand (both from CPS and from judges). The fact is, a dysfunctional family is the norm. That's the problem with families, they consist chiefly of people, not a single one of whom is perfect.