Beware phone operators...They'll call the law on you.

You protect them by not overburdening an already overburdened system with false or unsubstantiated claims of abuse or neglect.

If one in three reports were substantiated, that means 2/3 did not meet even the minimum standards of suspicion. Just think of how much more CPS could potentially do if it didn't have to investigate those 2/3 of claims that are utterly and completely without merit.

Would those three kids still die (I will add, by the way, that at least some of those kids died while in the care of the state. Children die at a 1.5 per 100,000 rate in the general population. They die at a 6.4 per 100,000 rate while in state custody) if CPS had their time and resources freed up significantly by not having to investigate so many cases that shouldn't be investigated in the first place? Would having those 14,000 foster homes where non-abused kids were placed open to accept kids who were actually abused possibly have saved some lives, or at least curtailed some abuse?

How many children continue to be abused or are killed because CPS doesn't have the time or resources available because they're way too busy investigating false or unsubstantiated claims of abuse?

And why would it be okay to emotionally abuse 50 children in order to save one child from abuse? Certainly traumatizing children by subjecting them to a completely unfounded investigation could be a form of abuse in and of itself, especially for those tens of thousands of children who are removed from their homes and their parents for no reason whatsoever.

If it's okay to do that, then we should probably just take everybody's kids away, investigate everyone and make sure they are good parents before giving the kids back and allowing their parents to be parents. I mean, if it prevents one child from being abused, wouldn't it be worth it?

But personally, my line is to investigate when there is something to investigate. When someone has some evidence, then look into it. The standards to take someone's children away or subject them to the abuse of the system should not be lower than it takes to arrest someone for other crimes. If there is no probable cause, then get back to me when there is.

It's horrible that there are guilty people that get away with it, and it's horrible that children are subjected to such cruelty both by their parents or by the state or fostercare givers. But that doesn't mean I think it's worth it to throw out constitutional protections and subject innocent people to financial and emotional hardship. And I do believe that a system that results in so many innocent people being investigated when there is absolutely no evidence to support such an investigation means that there are likely numerous children who need help but aren't able to get it because the investigations of the innocent are eating up too much time and and too many resources.

 

And actually, the article you quote says that in 1986 only half were reported, but that reporting rates have gone up significantly since then.

And despite that, the number of children who die has gone up dramatically, as well. Does that mean that more children are being abused to death? Or does it mean that because of all the increased reporting that CPS workers are so overburdened by having to sift through hundreds of thousands of false or unsubstantiated claims that they cannot spend the time necessary to help the children who are truly in need?

Notice the 47% of those who died were known to CPS agencies, yet CPS did not remove those children from their homes. That sounds to me like an agency that just doesn't have the resources to devote to protecting kids, likely because they have to spend so much time investigating cases where there is no evidence of abuse. Perhaps those 600-some-odd kids who died despite being known to CPS would've been better off in foster care than some of those 14,000-some-odd kids who were removed from their homes despite there not being any evidence of abuse?

 

Well said.

 

mrpaige,

I still think the resolution to your issues (over burdening the CPS system) is to fund the CPS properly, not tell people to stop reporting cases of potential abuse.

You say 'investigate when there is something to investigate'; what does that mean? Is that even remotely the same meaning from person to person?

And what about that fact that about 50% of all cases, and almost the same percentage for the deaths, are of neglect? Sounds like you would argue that unless a child has visible bruises or broken bones, then no one should call. At least half of the valid cases would never be reported.

What is this about emotionally abusing 50 kids for saving one, if 1/3 of reports turn out to be valid? Isn't that questioning 2 to save the third? And is there no way to question those two to assess their situation w/o emotionally traumitizing them?

Meaningless statistic without additional analysis. Those children in State custody are not in the same risk categories as those in the general population. By definition, the State should only be taking custody of those abused and neglected children. For a valid comparison, you would need to compare the death rate of those abused and neglected children if they were not taken into custody.

About burdening innocent families: improve the way investigations occur; teach people how to recognize child abuse; don't tell people not to report child abuse.

 

I already said I don't know the answer to this question.

I was pointing out: 1) there is no frivolous meter, & 2) errors are made on both sides (some abusing parents invariable get away with it, some non-abusing parents will unjustly have their children taken away)--so you can only impact whether you want differential likelihood of errors on way or the other. Should the system trying to reduce child abuse be like the criminal justice system where clearly more truly guilty get innocent verdicts relative to truly innocents getting guilty verdicts (a system I generally agree with for criminal cases) OR should it be more like criminal cases in many third world countries, or civil cases her, or IRS cases here, all systems where invariable more innocents end up unduly paying in order to make more of the “guilty” pay (or in the child abuse case keeping more children safe from abuse or death at the cost of some others unduly loosing parents).

Again, I don't know the answer--both errors if made regarding child abuse are terrible. My guess is there are a lot more investigated parents that end up killing their children w/o major action by the state than investigated parents who unduly get their children taken away--but I really don't know as I am not an expert in the area (further, even experts probably can only provide educated guesses as well). But I do know this whole debate is more about which errors do you want to slant the system to (or make them equally likely) rather than somehow getting greater insight into which cases are frivolous or not and investigating those. I am sure CPS and other agencies involved don’t like spending time on frivolous cases like the one that started this thread when they could be going after real cases of abuse.

 

Well, we know that about 1,200 abused children die each year, about half of which are known to CPS (according to the link that Cohen posted), and we know that in 18 states that breakdown the statistics, over 14,000 children who are not abused are taken from their homes.

You seem to be saying that the vast majority of those who have their children taken away despite their cases being unsubstantiated are still somehow abusing their children and perhaps CPS just couldn't prove it enough to substantiate the case (i.e. they knew something was going on but couldn't meet a standard that allowed them to move the case from unsubstantiated to substantiated or indicated). That's the only way that your guess could be true is if the reports that are unsubstantiated are not cases of child abuse not occurring.

If that's what you're saying, that sure illustrated the danger in investigating innocent people as the fact that an investigation has taken place seems to lead some to believe that there must have been some sort of abuse.

 

That's something that should be done that would help the problem considerably. But when we think about how in the county in which I live, there are FOUR approved foster homes, according to the State. My county has over 113,000 children living in it. There were 2,051 cases of suspected abuse reported. 483 cases were confirmed abuse. Considering the staff numbers all of about five people, that means the county staff has to deal with about 410 cases each per year. I'm sure they could do their jobs so much better if those who had suspicions would take the time to investigate things a little bit themselves to be as sure as they could possibly be before reporting since each report takes time away from the rest of the case that have to be dealt with.

Calling CPS to report something you may or may not have heard over the telephone regarding kids and people you don't even know isn't helping them or the kids that really need the help.

I would, too, do away with anonymous reporting. They should be able to shield those who report from the person being reported (though under some circumstances, those reporters should be made known to the person reported), but they should be willing to go on the record with CPS. That should cut down on people making frivilous claims. Being able to be anonymous often makes people too bold.

Meet a minmum standard of evidence. What was seen? What leads the reporter to believe that abuse has taken place? What proof does one have to offer that there is abuse or neglect taking place? If it means having to do a little snooping on your own before making the claim, then do it. If I suspect something, maybe I should ask some questions myself.

Of course, those are legally required to report any suspicion should follow the law as written. Those people are in positions where the pattern of abuse (and the subtle signs) should be more evident. These people are often trained to spot signs of abuse, as well. When those people report, they tend to do so from a position of being more sure.

The "I thought I heard something bad on the phone" would not meet that standard. The people most likely to spot true abuse are those like teachers, peers, friend's parents, physicians, etc. And those people would be more able to spot a pattern of behavior, which is what abuse or neglect really is.

Evidence would be something more than, "I thought I heard something over the telephone, so I'm reporting this abuse". Neglected children show signs of neglect. I've seen them.

There are even some kids who are physically abused who do not show bruises or outward signs of abuse, but people who deal with those children on a regular basis are likely to notice those things... many of whom are required by law to report their suspicions already.

I was just going back to the claim that it would be okay to investigate 50 innocent people in order to protect one abused child. Yes, depending on the state, the number of innocent people who are investigated can range from roughly 60% to roughly 80% of the total number investigated.

States do not, though, only take into custody those who are abused and neglected. They take kids in cases they themselves cannot substantiate. It happens to thousands of kids. Sometimes over 30% of the kids taken in any given state are kids who were not abused or neglected.

The statistic is not meaningless, though. A child's risk category is supposed to decrease when they are placed in a foster home. The fact that so many kids are killed by their foster parents or someone else in the foster home or group home where the state was supposed to be looking out for them means that taking kids away (especially those thousands who were never abused) and placing them in state-sanctioned settings is not a panacea, either.

Perhaps because there is so much effort being expended investigating unsubstantiated claims, there isn't time to properly check out potential foster homes and make sure those foster parents aren't abusers, as well.

That's fine. Tell people to report when they see the true signs of child abuse or neglect. Teach them what to look for. Instead, we've got a system where kids who aren't abused and aren't showing the signs are being reported as potentially being abused. People who have almost no contact (or no actual contact like the operator on the telephone) have not seen those signs and should not be reporting. We can couch it in the positive (if you see these signs, you should report to your local CPS, etc), but the message should still be to report when you see the signs not that you should report whenever you have the slightest notion that someone may be abused or neglected even though you have no real way of knowing and haven't been trained to see the signs.

And CPS should not take children who aren't in imminent danger. It's reprehensible that thousands of unabused children are being removed from their homes for no reason.

 

Good luck with that!

 

Your numbers do suggest more children are removed from non-abusing households than children that die in households that have been investigated (and presumably cleared) by CPS. However I do not know if there are good reasons (that don't qualify as "abuse" but nonetheless suggest major problems where a child would have a hard time developing with a remote sense of normalcy or health/functioning in society mainly because of the household environment) for many of the 14K children being removed.

MrPaige you may some good points on system changes that would be helpful. If anonymous tips haven’t been helpful in identifying cases of abuse than I would be fine getting rid of them. But if they have lead to finding real cases of abuse above and beyond what non-anonymous tips (probably more by teachers, relatives or close friends of the child/parent rather than strangers, operators, or more distant neighbors or the like) I am less sure about that move. I would think that data is available (how many anonymous--probably from distant people, tips—lead to legit cases).

 

Those cases would probably fit into the "needing services" category, which was broken down separately in most of those states.

But since I didn't provide a link, you couldn't have known that there were more than just the two categories that I mentioned (substantiated vs. unsubstantiated). If I could find the link again, I'd post it. There were four or five categories depending on the state.

The anonymous tips thing might not be such a factor if we were to 1. expand funding so folks aren't so overworked, and 2. did have a campaign to tell people the warning signs of abuse/neglect so they would be more likely to report those cases which fit the profile and not rely on as much guesswork as is often required now.

You'd still have some people reporting cases that aren't abusive situations or cases reported that don't fit the warning signs, but I suspect the number of frivilous reports would decrease and make it that much easier for caseworkers to help those children who really do need help.

 

That's perfectly consistent with my opinions on this also.