After nffhtdssrz
a neighbor called the cops and CPS on a mom whose child was 50 feet away from her in her own large backyard (see the post right below this one) and the cops, thankfully, realized how ridiculous that was, the mom wanted to fight back. She pondered suing the neighbor. She wanted to make it clear to the neighborhood — and world — that kids have the RIGHT to play outside, if their parents think they’re ready.
a neighbor called the cops and CPS on a mom whose child was 50 feet away from her in her own large backyard (see the post right below this one) and the cops, thankfully, realized how ridiculous that was, the mom wanted to fight back. She pondered suing the neighbor. She wanted to make it clear to the neighborhood — and world — that kids have the RIGHT to play outside, if their parents think they’re ready.
.
Many of you readers cautioned against this, saying let’s not fight excess legal involvement with excess legal involvement. But David DeLugas, director of the National Association of Parents, explains that the idea of a lawsuit was not tit for tat. It’s to make the courts declare that, absent actual abuse, parents are allowed to raise their kids as they see fit. As he explains:
.
THE reason to sue is not to stop (perhaps well-intentioned) people from contacting CPS or law enforcement, but to bring this issue to an appellate court for it to rule that, balancing the Constitutional rights of parents to decide for their own children, and the state’s interest in protecting children, a child NOT HURT, not in distress, and not in imminent danger of an identifiable source of harm IS NOT BEING NEGLECTED by the parent(s). Then, perhaps, we can slow or stop the calls reporting a parent simply because someone doesn’t agree with the parenting or worries needlessly that a child might get hurt from something that is so rare as to make being hit by a meteor or lightning bolt an equally likely occurrence..
DeLugas is right. It would be wonderful to have a court rule that way and get it on the lawbooks.
.
As it turns out, Kim, the mom, is not actually planning to sue. But someday someone will, and that’s the case DeLugas is eager for. Me, too. We need a definitive ruling by the government that differences in parenting styles shouldn’t matter to anyone but angry busybodies, who in turn should have nothing but snippy gossip and evil looks in their arsenal, not the nuclear bomb of a state investigation.
.
Joining the National Association of Parents is just $19 a year. I’m a member. Maybe you’ll consider joining, too, to fight for our right to raise Free-Range Kids. – L.
.
.
54 Comments
The thing is to make sure it is a case in which you might get a statement like that. That is more likely to occur where dependency or criminal or registry action has taken place–or at a minimum the report contained false information. A lawsuit defeated by immunity won’t get a declaration like that. Instead, it will get an early motion to dismiss or demurrer, followed by newspaper reports on the dismissal which will suggest to many that the reporter was right.
Exactly. The idea is NOT to “make nice” with the busybodies, the idea is to DESTROY them in terms of them having legal avenues for imposing their views on other people who didn’t ask for their opinion.
Opinions are fine, advice is fine, having helpful non-threatening feedback from others is good (especially if one’s child is misbehaving in some way that’s harmful/disrespectful to others), and yes in EXTREME CASES parents need to be held accountable for awful things. 99.7% of the time, though, parents are absolutely ENTITLED to be LEFT ALONE, and anyone who would DARE interfere in their (almost) absolute authority should be held legally accountable for parental harassment.
LRH, lay people reporting to CPS have their opinions, and when their opinion is that they are seeing a child being abused then they will likely take action as responsible people do. The problem is that those who are supposed to know what the legal definition of abuse is, and what the legal threshhold for interference in the parent/child relationship is, are those officials receiving the reports. That is where the battle is.
When I worked in a private Dentist’s office, we had a client bring in two little girls. They were terrified in the dentist’s chair and when they left, I saw the mother outside, she didn’t know I could see her. She was hitting the girls and lifted one up by her hair. I called the police and they went to the house. A police officer called me and said they had removed the children, and thanked me, because their home life was a living hell. No wonder they were terrified with our very gentle pediatric dentist. I hope I did the right thing, and hope she had some help to get her girls back and be a better parent. I was a very abused child myself and no one helped me. I went to school in inappropriate clothing with bruises all over me. No one said anything in the 50’s and 60’s. But now it is way overboard.
Are adults without children who celebrate children allowed to join?
Richard, that busybody person in this case was a teacher. Therefore, I suggest she should know what abuse is and what is not.
As much as I hate to sue over something that shouldn’t be a big deal sometimes the the only way to rein in the idiots is to hit them in the wallet. After all cps will use anything as reason to take the kids if they feel like it. And something doesn’t happen to show the law that legally kids do not have be joined at their parents hips every time they go outside this keep happening. But if the government or the supreme court doesn’t say it then well we get this.
I think the lawyer makes a good point & I think CPS, not the neighbor should be the target of any suit. I do think trying to talk to the neighbor & open conversation would be a good option. After all don’t we want our neighbors looking out for our kids when we are not there? Isn’t that part of what freerange is about? it takes a village. When I leave my kids home, they know to call 911 in an emergency, but they also know if they need help that is not 911 worth they can go to a neighbor.
I’m pretty sure she tried talking to the teacher/neighbor, and received a letter from her attorney in return.
Jana, teachers vary in their opinions as to what constitutes abuse or neglect just as the rest of the population. Given the training that most mandatory reporters get, which is that it is their job to report any suspicion and let the authorities determine if there is actually abuse or neglect, they may well be more inclined to report. The reason that such reports are frightening is because parents are afraid that CWS or law enforcement will take unreasonable actions in response to such reports–not because the report itself is harmful. For example, in my state such reports go to a child abuse hotline. The hotline people are responsible for determining what, if any, response is required. They can simply evaluate the report out if the facts reported do not indicate unlawful neglect or abuse. If the report contains sufficient facts to suggest unlawful abuse or neglect may be occurring, it is set for either an immediate response (where imminent risk is suggested) or for a longer term response. The job of the responding social worker, if the report was not evaluated out, is to investigate whether unlawful abuse or neglect has occurred or is likely to occur just as it is in response to elder abuse reports. Only substantiated reports of abuse or neglect are entered into the state registry.
Lawsuits and public shaming certainly play a role, but it is more likely to go the other way as grievously injured children make headlines–children who are not injured generally don’t. A teacher who observed a normal bruise on a child and doesn’t report potential child abuse makes the right call in my opinion. However, if that child is physically abused, that teacher’s name will be dragged through the mud, and she may well get death threats. She will certainly be a defendant in a lawsuit alleging she failed to fulfill her duties as a mandatory reporter. There won’t be headlines about the call she made which was evaluated out or determined to be unsubstantiated. Trying to get headlines about an unnecessary report is likely to result in a complete lack of interest from the media. If you do manage to get local coverage of your indignation, much of the response will be how it is better safe than sorry, and how right the reporter was.
“DeLugas is right. It would be wonderful to have a court rule that way and get it on the lawbooks.”
It’s not going to happen, though, because there isn’t an objective way to measure “endangered” and accordingly, different people have different opinions of what, exactly, “endangered” means. This means that each time a case is being adjudicated, the facts of the immediate case need to be examined.
The states, via their legislatures, have the ability to set the standards under which the states may intervene in families. They may, or may not, adopt Mr. DeLugas’ standard. If they do not, trying to use a court to change the standard will not be effective. The legislature, and the bureaucracy, are responsive to public opinion… but public opinion sways back and forth, depending on whether the most recent case was a removal without sufficient reason, or a severely abused child who didn’t receive the help needed.
In any case, FAR too many people have an irrational fear of interacting with CPS (similar, in many ways, tothe fear some people have of random sexual predators).
A case I’m familiar with involved a single mother who worked 12-hour shifts but couldn’t afford daycare for her small child. So the child was left home alone, in a reasonably safe suburban neighborhood, for 12 hours at a time. There’s no specific danger that you can point to that was likely to occur, but it’s fairly clear that children of that age should not be left home alone all day.
The scary CPS became involved. They investigated, questioning the mother, the child, and various neighbors. They found that neglect was present. So they immediately whisked the child away, never to be seen again. No, the worked with the mother to identify social programs that could help her find subsidized childcare, and ultimately the mother moved in with relatives to reduce her housing expense and free up money for daily childcare.
While I disagree with ‘tit for tat’ (and am pleased that many others do as well) I can see the benefits of taking away the busybody’s trump card. The system allowed them to control the police, CPS, and school administrators, like a puppet on a string. This is what gave them this hobby in the first place! Perhaps now they will start collecting stamps instead.
I’ve been a teacher for 15 years – I’ve reported 2 and a 1/2 families
1. The student made a declaration – Dad got mad because you sent that letter home and threw me across the room here are the bruises. I was required by law to report that – but I included that I suspected the child was lying to get his Dad in trouble. He had been moved to my class for threatening to beat his previous teacher into a miscarriage. Boy was lying – and he was abusing his younger brother. He was put in therapy.
2. Girl with whip marks across her back and shoulders. CPS actually did a good job. The mom had cracked once under extreme pressure – my student had eaten the food meant for dinner. There was no more money for food until pay day the next day. 3 yo and 6 yo younger siblings went hungry that night. Mom had to take a parenting class – that included both food planning and how to get help and the state went after the father that had just taken off and left the family for child support. The mom requested me for both of her other kids.
3. Boy came in with a broken wrist that had been untreated. This is the 1/2 family because I was going to have to report possible medical neglect. He realized this and fessed up. He broke his wrist skateboarding after school the day before. He was not allowed to skateboard because he refused to wear safety equipment. He and his brother had wrapped up his wrist, and forged a nurses’ note saying that he had fallen in PE and sprained it. Fortunately our school district had a partnership with a local hospital and he was able to get it taken care of promptly.
I have had at least one kid every year that is constantly black and blue – and when you watch them on the playground at recess you see why. Some are klutzes and some are very athletic and push themselves to their limits.
I’m just north of Houston. This spring we had 2 100 year floods. After the 1st one the schools were closed but parents had to go to work. The teenagers and some parents who either are stay at home or work was closed/under water banned together to watch the little ones. They basically had a block party. Only problem – 2 different groups on different streets had water fights/sprinklers going. Both yards boarder on my yard and due to the saturated ground they flooded my yard. When I alerted them they stopped. That is what communities do. I love my neighbors – the teenagers are eagle eyed and report any weirdness to adults
“a child NOT HURT, not in distress, and not in imminent danger of an identifiable source of harm IS NOT BEING NEGLECTED by the parent(s).”
Actually a child who is not hurt, not in distress, and not in an imminent danger of an identifiable source of harm, may very well in fact be neglected.
I could decide to leave my 10 year old home alone for a month while I go on vacation It is certainly possible that my actions will be discovered because my daughter is hurt, in distress or in imminent danger, however it is far more likely that none of these things will exist. In fact, knowing my kid, intermittent emotional distress is likely, but it is highly unlikely that she will suffer any injury or be in any imminent danger for the entire month. Discovery is far more likely to come from my daughter telling her friends who then tell their parents or her having to tell someone looking for me or our neighbors seeing only her for awhile and asking her about it. Yet, no rational person would seriously argue that I am not guilty of child neglect.
I admit, I would love to see such taken to courts.
“parents are absolutely ENTITLED to be LEFT ALONE,”
Actually, no they are not. Parents are entitled to not be arrested or have their children taken away from them for less than abuse or neglect. Parents are entitled to be allowed to continue to parent any way that they wish as long as their choices do not amount to abuse or neglect. Parents are entitled to not have lies reported to the police.
However, there is absolutely no provision whatsoever in the Constitution or any state law that I can think of (and I do practice law in Georgia) that entitles parents freedom from having their parenting choices questioned by their fellow citizens. And that is really all that happened in this situation. Someone questioned their parenting choices. That someone called the police and DFCS. The police investigated and determined that no law was broken and allowed them to carry on with their life unimpeded. The cops didn’t attempt to try to convince them that their actions, while not illegal, are still dangerous. They didn’t tell the parents that, although nothing illegal occurred, they need to stop their actions. In fact, they supported the parents completely and even gave them the name of the reporter so that they could try to work the situation out themselves. There is no indication in the previous letter that I remember that DFCS even bothered to follow up with anything, but if it did, it also determined that no abuse or neglect occurred and allowed them to carry on with their life unimpeded. End of story.
The reality is that it will NEVER be illegal to call the police with factual information that turns out, upon investigation, to noncriminal (in general; there may be some liability if the reporter is intentionally harassing). It is never going to be civilly actionable for people to report factual information to the police that is, upon investigation, determined to be noncriminal (in general; there may be some liability if the reporter is intentionally harassing). And we don’t actually want it to be, unless you want to live in a crime-infested police state. The police, who can’t be everywhere at all times, actually rely pretty heavily on citizens reporting suspected criminal activity to do their jobs. If you take away their citizen eyes and ears, you have to be willing to accept a much larger police force and a much higher crime rate.
“If you take away their citizen eyes and ears, you have to be willing to accept a much larger police force and a much higher crime rate.”
Sorry, but no. They need to curtail citizen busy bodyness as outlined here AND still not have an overbearing police state AND still not have a higher crime rate, ALL of it. I simply don’t believe that not being scrutinized by every busy body in this way is a necessary price to pay for not having a Wild Wild West.
What I’d do, among other things–abolish all anonymous reporting, ALL of it. Any reports which can’t be verified and traced to a specific person will be discarded completely. No more being too chicken to stand behind your accusations which can wreck a family, it’s over. If you’re too scared to open your mouth, TOUGH. Grow a backbone or zip your piehole. Yes there are those who get revenge on honest reporters, but there’s too much of this sort of thing to just keep on as we are.
LRH
“Sorry, but no. They need to curtail citizen busy bodyness as outlined here AND still not have an overbearing police state AND still not have a higher crime rate, ALL of it”
And while they’re working on that, they need to cut taxes and increase services.
@Kimberley, I love Skateboard Boy! The lengths kids will go to to avoid getting into trouble :-). There was a boy who lives a couple of suburbs over from us who a couple of years ago ‘slipped’ into a flooded drain that happens to be diverted underneath a shopping mall. He was swept several hundred metres, right under the mall and, thank the good Lord, out the other side safely. In the meantime his mates had run for help, and by the time he was fished out the police etc. were involved. A wonderful outcome, but the funny part for me was the two explanations that came out over a few days. First he told all and sundry, but most especially Mum, that he had been walking along with his friends and had slipped in. Finally it emerged that he’d actually jumped in (probably on a dare!). Needless to say, he was grounded for a month :-).
As to the mum who lost it, marvelous that she got help. That would be a very scary situation, being without food for one’s family. Happening too often here at the moment too, and often people are too proud to say anything. We always keep spare food at school, and could send it home with kids if they would just say something :-(.
One other small thing we ought all to do is to use quotation marks around the word neighbor when writing/typing it in these discussions, here and elsewhere, because this is not the behavior of a neighbor. A neighbor is someone who interacts with people directly, all other things being equal, before involving authorities. Persons who live nearby and aare nasty or tattling are not neighbors!
Courts have stepped in to protect a parents right to make certain decisions for their children, so I don’t see a reason why it couldn’t be done in this situation. While setting some kind of objective rules is unlikely, they may attempt to establish some kinds of standards. That being said, this case doesn’t seem like one that would good for establishing some kinds of rules.
Richard, you say that a teacher that fails to report abuse will certainly be a defendant if there is abuse. This fear was certainly instilled in me when I went through reporter training, but I have found it to not be true. If that were true, we would be hearing about it.
The scary CPS became involved. They investigated, questioning the mother, the child, and various neighbors. They found that neglect was present. So they immediately whisked the child away, never to be seen again. No, the worked with the mother to identify social programs that could help her find subsidized childcare, and ultimately the mother moved in with relatives to reduce her housing expense and free up money for daily childcare.
I have no doubt that this happens. Back in the day, I worked for a program tha received referrals from CPS to do these types of services. I have also worked in counties with very skilled and intelligent CPS workers. My problem isn’t with them. It is with the ones who are on the opposite ends of the spectrum. These workers take advantage of the fact that most people that come into contact with CPS don’t have the funds or the initiative to get legal assistance. I have seen workers routinely threaten and lie to the people they are investigating and fail to do a thorough investigation.
While I am in favor of fighting back, I don’t see how a lawsuit in this case would be productive. Getting one neighbor to see the light won’t stop the abuse of power by those in power, and might well mobilize them to pass laws immunizing busybodies from such lawsuits.
Thus my response of shaming via kindness. It targets the perpetrator, and gets under their skin. They get uncomfortable not because of something you did, but because their own actions haunt them. Passive-aggressive, sure, but sometimes that’s what’s needed.
Steve S, my county has had two such cases in recent memory. While the incidents received press coverage, the lawsuits didn’t due to protective orders and statutory confidentiality.
“We need a definitive ruling by the government that differences in parenting styles shouldn’t matter to anyone but angry busybodies…”
“We” aren’t going to get that. (a) Differences in parenting styles include beating children senseless. No court is going to rule that this is okay. (b) We already have laws on the books (that we may or may not agree with). Mostly, the lower level courts will rule on whether a particular event is covered by a specific law. In this case, I’d expect a court to rule that no law was broken. BUT NOTHING MORE.
“Richard, you say that a teacher that fails to report abuse will certainly be a defendant if there is abuse. This fear was certainly instilled in me when I went through reporter training, but I have found it to not be true. If that were true, we would be hearing about it”
You’re hearing about it right now.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/05/young_girl_got_herpes_after_mc.html
” Persons who live nearby and aare nasty or tattling are not neighbors!”
Ah. So someone who takes a neighborhood dispute to a website with international reach is not a “neighbor”?
Kimberly: We need more of you 🙂 You have the gift of perfect balance between brain and heart.
{“We” aren’t going to get that. (a) Differences in parenting styles include beating children senseless. No court is going to rule that this is okay. }
I think anyone with any common sense understands you can’t have it be to where parents have ABSOLUTE authority to where molestation or sawing off limbs etc is deemed a parent’s absolute right, and in fact I believe such has been explicitly stated.
Beyond such extremes, though, yes, parents SHOULD have the unquestioned right to do as they please, and such should be vigorously enforced by law with every bit the same vigor and seriousness as child abuse or even rape and murder etc are.
“They need to curtail citizen busy bodyness as outlined here AND still not have an overbearing police state AND still not have a higher crime rate, ALL of it.”
And we all need to be rich without working. And … well, the list could go on and on of diametrically opposed things that we want to happen simultaneously.
In the REAL world, you cannot criminalize making reports that cannot be legally substantiated (not false which are already criminalized, but simply reports that were earnest and true, but legally insufficient) unless you are willing to increase the police force and endure a higher crime rate. Citizens are not trained in the law. Citizens don’t have the skills to conduct full investigations prior to calling the police nor do we want them poking around in possibly dangerous situations. Even the most incriminating details could be misinterpretations. If I hear my neighbor angrily yelling “I am going to kill you” followed by a loud noise that resembles a gun shot, I would likely call the police to report a potential shooting. And that could be what happened. Or it could also be that my neighbors are practicing for a play. Since I don’t know with 100% certainty and I don’t want to risk my life finding out, I am far less likely to call the police if I am at risk of being criminally prosecuted or sued if the second scenario ends up being true. My neighbors are nice and all and I’d hate to see her bleeding to death after her husband shot her because nobody called for help, but I have to protect myself and my family first.
“What I’d do, among other things—abolish all anonymous reporting, ALL of it.”
Umm, you do understand that this was not an anonymous report, right? In fact, the cop gave the mother the name of the reporter.
Further, there seems to be a great misunderstanding on this board between anonymous reporting and confidential reporting. They are two completely separate things. Anonymous reporting means that you never give your name or any other identifying information. Confidential reporting means that the authorities know who you are, however, they are legally prohibited from sharing that information with anyone. The vast majority of CPS reports fall into the latter category, not the former. I currently represent approximately 300 kids in DFCS care. Almost none of them are there as the result of an anonymous report. I may not know who made the report, but DFCS does. And the vast majority of 911 calls tend to be neither. I can’t recall ever encountering a confidential 911 call and anonymous 911 calls have limited use in criminal cases.
“there’s too much of this sort of thing to just keep on as we are.”
THIS was simply a person calling the police and CPS and being shot down while the parents are told that their actions are completely legal. I’m really not sure why we are outraged that this happened. THIS is exactly how the system is supposed to work. THIS is what we want to happen. We can’t eradicate crazy people with phones. We rely on the authorities to screen them out and that.is.exactly.what.happened.here.
And, for the record, the police have been called on me/my child. She was walking to the park by herself and somebody called the police. The end result was exactly as in this case … nothing happened. The cop talked to my daughter, discovered that she was 9 years old, and that I knew she was walking to the park. The cop then called me, reported what happened and told me several times that my actions were not illegal. While I rolled my eyes at whomever called, I was not outraged. I was not angry. I was not scared that I was going to lose my child. I did not demand that laws must change to remove the 911 calling ability from my neighbors. Or make them criminally liable if they did it again. I wasn’t looking to sue my neighbors or even find out the identity. My daughter continued to walk or ride her bike to the park for swim team for the rest of the summer without worry (or incident). It was a complete non-event as far as I am concerned.
“Beyond such extremes, though, yes, parents SHOULD have the unquestioned right to do as they please”
Good news, that’s what we have now!
Parents have the unquestioned right to do as they please, except when they don’t.
Thanks. That case from Oregon seems especially bad. I hope they prevail.
If you (Donna) consider it a “non event” when police are called over frivolous parenting matters, that’s all well and fine, but others feel otherwise. That’s why this is a topic to begin with.
Me–I want one thing and one thing over and above everything else, to be left alone no matter what I do with my children (assuming I’m not sawing off limbs etc), and I don’t want to be compelled to live on an island or tolerate higher other crime towards that end. Make it that way, no excuses. In fact I not only would like that, I think I (and all decent parents) have the RIGHT to it, we are ENTITLED to it.
It reminds me of what CEO of Apple Tim Cook said during the controversy of the FBI asking for Apple to break into the terrorists’ phone, he said Americans shouldn’t have to choose between security or privacy, we had the right to have BOTH. That’s exactly the case here as well, we shouldn’t have to choose between a safe world (with children being protected as part of that) vs being able to parent without harassment, we are entitled to BOTH. It IS possible, and no one will ever convince me in a million years that it isn’t.
“I think I (and all decent parents) have the RIGHT to it, we are ENTITLED to it.”
You aren’t. You never will be. Here’s why.
The state has a legitimate interest in protecting your kids from dangers, including those that originate with you. Don’t think of it as the state’s rights vs your rights (although, as I said, the state DOES have rights in this debate) Rather, think of it as your rights vs. your kids’ rights, with the state standing in. As long as your rights and your kids’ rights are in agreement, the state stays out. When your rights come into conflict with your kids’, the state steps in.
The state has it’s own rights, to monitor and investigate if it needs to take action. That’s what Donna is describing… the state was notified of a possible issue, the state investigated, the investigation showed that there was no issue, the end… that’s the system working as it is supposed to. Until such time as we get psychic social workers, who can just clairvoyantly know when they are needed, and when they are not, there’s going to be the possibility that an investigation might happen to people who are not breaking any laws, and whose kids are fine. But here in the real world the state doesn’t know that the kids are fine until AFTER they investigate.
“That’s exactly the case here as well, we shouldn’t have to choose between a safe world (with children being protected as part of that) vs being able to parent without harassment, we are entitled to BOTH.”
Nobody is promising you EITHER ONE, and if they are, they’re lying, deluded, or some combination of BOTH.
Thank you, Donna, for your rational words.
In this story, the system functioned exactly as it should have. An obnoxious busybody complained, nobody took it seriously, and the mom got pissed off. Nobody was harmed in any way.
Also, this organization Lenore is giving her money to is one guy (the “99-dollar lawyer”) and his friends (who are volunteers). Maybe in a few years it will be a real organization that takes actual cases and has some sway. I’ll donate then. Check out their website throughly before you do.
I stand by my words. Parents have a right to not be harassed over stupid nonsense like this. Bothering them over it is something which should carry with it legal ramifications vs one simply going “oops, sorry for bothering you.” If one can’t see the problem with a parent being harassed over, egads, a child playing in his or her own yard, I’m not sure that you understand free range parenting at all. I’m not sure you understand parenting itself at all.
This busybody’s concerns were ultimately dismissed, that’s good, but was she admonished for making such a deal over nothing? Can she call and bother this mother again? More to the point, where does she get the idea that how this mother parents HER children is any of her blinking business anyway, and in what way can she be firmly called on the carpet for poking her Pinocchio-sized nose in places it doesn’t belong?
Calling over bruises that coincide with a yelling parent, OK (yes I said it, OK, although even then if the child is on a wrestling team and the parent is yelling at traffic, well THINK). That a parent may be occasionally questioned over matters like THAT for clarification, by all means, but parenting is not meant to be a “living in a fishbowl” experience where decisions such as letting a child play in his or her own yard merit busybodies chiming in with their 2 cents worth.
No matter who or what did or didn’t promise me X or Y, ““`I““ believe that’s the way it ought to be, and good for this mother for pushing back against the busybodies. You don’t reason with these people, you tell them to take a hike, and you DESTROY them (legally) when they refuse to. Anyone who can’t tell the difference between bruises and yelling vs playing in one’s own yard has no business calling themselves anything but an ignoramus, and the next time they feel the urge to call somebody maybe they should call a therapist.
@lrh “No more being too chicken to stand behind your accusations which can wreck a family, it’s over. If you’re too scared to open your mouth, TOUGH. Grow a backbone or zip your piehole.”
Consequence 1: The worst abuse made by most aggressive people will go unreported. Non-abuse done by weaker/submissive/unpopular people will still be reported, because nobody fear those.
Consequence 2: Unpopular people and people who have something to loose by confrontation will keep their mount shut no matter how bad abuse they will witness.
“That’s exactly the case here as well, we shouldn’t have to choose between a safe world (with children being protected as part of that) vs being able to parent without harassment, we are entitled to BOTH.”
I fully agree. The problem is in you defining harassment as “someone talking to you.” Nobody was harassed in this story. While it has slightly different meanings in different settings, Oxford Dictionary defines harassment in general as “aggressive pressure or intimidation.” That did not happen here. All that happened is that someone reported something to the police. The police came out and from all appearances politely talked to the mother about the situation, quickly determined that it was a non-event and everyone moved on with their lives just as they were before. Now if the neighbor continues to call the police, THAT would indicate harassment and a need to pursue further action to get her to stop. However, there is no indication that that is going to occur here.
What you said {Donna} most recently makes sense. That is the main thing I’d like to see–OK, you called about a concern, fine, but going forward, the woman needs to have it explained to her that she ultimately way overreacted and going forward please don’t bother us again unless you have something REAL that you’ve seen.
{test} What you are describing is how a lot of people respond to my suggestion of ending anonymous reporting (or should it be confidential?). I still stand by what I said–put a name to your accusations or say nothing. If someone sees real abuse but is too scared to call, THAT’S THEIR PROBLEM. Some people just don’t have a backbone and that’s just ridiculous they should be so much that way. The rest of us shouldn’t have every parenting decision we make subject to unending scrutiny because of those situations. Being harassed (depending on what we term harassment, certainly a neighbor calling over this sort of thing more than once is harassment) is a serious enough matter I’d consider it right up with child abuse itself in terms of how wrong it is and how seriously it should be dealt with.
As I said, figure out a way to protect the abused but ALSO to not have innocent parents dealing with busybodies who dislike their parenting styles, BOTH. Spare me the “that’s not the real world” blather. I believe it can and should be done.
“No wonder they were terrified with our very gentle pediatric dentist.”
Suz, many dentists are sadists, whether you (as one yourself) like to hear it or not.
I’ve had more than a few (the majority in fact) who relish causing pain and discomfort, both to children and adults.
Refusing to use anesthetics for example is common, and deliberately sticking implements into life nerves.
The home situation might be enough reason for the children to be removed, but a history of fear of dentists is no indication of an abusive home situation.
LRH, when people don’t report abuse they witness, the loser is not the reluctant witness. The loser is the victim of the abuse and any other victims. Sometimes a report of something minor results in uncovering horrific abuse or neglect..
{Richard} I am not necessarily disagreeing with that, I’m saying such doesn’t mean one can’t over-report and that over-reporting is harmless. You have to strike a proper balance, and that abuse exists doesn’t mean parents who aren’t abusive are wrong in wanting over-reporting dealt with. I submit that pestering a parent over them merely letting a child play in his-her own yard is most certainly over-reporting.
lrh, the problem is that people will always differ as to where the line between abuse/neglect and legitimate parenting choices is. People also have instincts (of varying reliability) which may tell them that something is wrong even when they don’t directly observe an abusive act. While I strongly believe that the answer is not penalizing misguided reporters, but ensuring that the professionals know what they are doing in response to reports. While I would come to that conclusion even without it, this approach is also consistent with First Amendment principles. People may observe, document and report behavior carried out in public spaces, or observable from public spaces. Restrictions on those rights almost always benefit the powerful at the expense of the weak.
“If someone sees real abuse but is too scared to call, THAT’S THEIR PROBLEM.”
No, that pretty much definitionally is the person being abused’s problem.
“As I said, figure out a way to protect the abused but ALSO to not have innocent parents dealing with busybodies who dislike their parenting styles, BOTH. Spare me the “that’s not the real world” blather. I believe it can and should be done.”
Imagination time.
What should happen if a busybody makes a report that turns out to be baseless, but as a result of the baseless accusation, unrelated but very real abuse is discovered?
I have not seen anyone in the comments mention that the teacher who made the report is required by law to make sure reports. The original article mentioned that she was a teacher and a ‘mandated reporter’. If you work for a school (or university) you are a mandated reporter and there is a whole list of things that you are supposed to report on, even if it is just a rumor. Yes, that is correct if you just hear an unsubstantiated rumor you HAVE to report it or risk loosing your job and or having criminal charges files. If you have a specially designated job at a school than you (like a counselor then you may not be compelled to file a report if a student tells you something on confidence.)
Don’t get me wrong, I am not supporting the idea that we have to call the police every time a child is more than 3 feet form a parent. The point I’m trying to make is that the law and policies at schools REQUIRE this non-sense. I feel like I have to be a lawyer to keep track of what I must report, what I can say, what I can’t say, etc. It creates an environment where everyone just employs the CYA principal and it troubles me.
“I have not seen anyone in the comments mention that the teacher who made the report is required by law to make sure reports.”
The mandated reporter is only required by law to report on things observes during the course of her employment, at least in the state where this occurred. Once outside that setting, she is just an ordinary citizen and has no more reporting responsibility than you or I.
Based on what was in the original letter, I assume that the reporter was a teacher, but was not at her school of employment when this occurred. Likely just there picking up her own child where she would have no more obligation than any other parent picking up their child.
And that makes sense, The purpose of the mandated reporter laws was not to force teachers (and various others) into being quasi-CPS workers obligated to uncover potential abuse wherever they go. It was to make sure that the people outside of the family with close connections to children were required to report potential abuse rather than ignoring it as was common in the past.
“I have not seen anyone in the comments mention that the teacher who made the report is required by law to make sure reports”
That’s because most of us read the original article, which pointed out that the woman was not, in fact, required by law to make a report.
On the other hand, a “mandatory reporter” who sees something reportable and says something like “Hey, I wasn’t at work. I didn’t have to report it” when it turns out that there WAS abuse or neglect, can expect to be excoriated by the press and public, so even though they aren’t required by law to report when they are in their private lives and not in a mandatory reporter setting, a reasonable person would err on the side of reporting something that probably isn’t serious over erring on the side of not reporting something that probably is.
(I don’t think that’s what is at work here… I think this is a neighborhood feud. But there’s more than just the law pushing a mandatory reporter to report signs of abuse/neglect that they see.)
“The purpose of the mandated reporter laws was not to force teachers (and various others) into being quasi-CPS workers obligated to uncover potential abuse wherever they go. It was to make sure that the people outside of the family with close connections to children were required to report potential abuse rather than ignoring it as was common in the past.”
The purpose of mandatory reporter laws is to resolve a conflict of interest. Any human being capable of compassion and empathy wants to prevent child abuse or neglect, if they can. But… reporting child abuse or neglect often has significant disadvantages for the reporter, as well. There’s the obvious direct conflict with the parents, who are unlikely to take being reported well, whether they are child abusers or not. In a lot of cases, there’s a risk to employment or income… a person who runs a daycare center, for example, who reports a parent as an abuser will lose a customer, and that means $$$. So a person who witnesses signs of abuse might be conflicted… they want to prevent abuse, but they don’t want to deal with the blowback from the parents, or risk the possible consequences to their employment or income, and therefore choose to keep silent.
A mandatory reporter law resolves the conflict. A person who works with children, who becomes aware of signs of abuse or neglect, must report or face legal sanctions. If the choice is now between possibly losing a customer and possibly losing a license, having to pay a huge fine, and maybe even having to go to jail, well… they aren’t going to keep silent about the signs of abuse they witness.
Now, this potentially has side effects, such as lots of “false positive” reports… things that looked like abuse to the reporter, but aren’t really. You’re also going to get a lot more tenuous reports… things that are only vaguely suggestive of abuse or neglect, but the reporter is in CYA mode. This means lots more reports for the investigators to sort through as they look for the real cases that need their attention. However, there were some VERY prominent cases of abuse being widely known, but not reported because A) the people who knew had strong reasons not to report, or B) “I thought someone else would report it”, so mandatory reporting laws aren’t going anyplace.
Thanks for the heads up on ‘The National Association of Parents!’ It looks great for only $19 a year. Man, we’ve gotta get these crazy busy-bodies out of our lives. They are the very antithesis of good neighbors. If you can’t be a part of someone’s life and can’t care enough about them to at least know them a bit, then you as a neighbor really should be more careful in regards to how you judge them.
“On the other hand, a “mandatory reporter” who sees something reportable and says something like “Hey, I wasn’t at work. I didn’t have to report it” when it turns out that there WAS abuse or neglect, can expect to be excoriated by the press and public, so even though they aren’t required by law to report when they are in their private lives and not in a mandatory reporter setting, a reasonable person would err on the side of reporting something that probably isn’t serious over erring on the side of not reporting something that probably is.”
A mandatory reporter who is IDENTIFIABLE as a witness MAY be excoriated in the press, however, mandatory reporters are generally not wearing signs IDing them as mandatory reporters. You would not know a mandatory reporter in the grocery store or post office or picking up their kids at school. Unless it is a murder on school grounds, nobody is going to track down every single person who was at school pick up, interview them as to what they saw, determine their mandatory reporter status and then leak it all to the press.
As someone who exists on every side of the mandatory reporter line depending on my roll for the moment, your thought process does somewhat vary based on the hat you are wearing. At work I move from mandatory reporter to prohibited reporter on a case-by-case basis. When I leave work, I am an average citizen with no reporting obligation. Except when prohibited by attorney-client privilege to do so, I would report obvious abuse either way. There are things that I see out in public that I don’t consider for a moment reporting that I would at least have to think about if I were at work. In general, I view them as no more dangerous one way or another. It is just a matter of whether I am going to lose my job if I ignore it or not.
“The purpose of mandatory reporter laws is to resolve a conflict of interest.”
The reason for the failure to report might indeed have been a conflict of interest. The purpose of the mandatory reporter laws are to get people to report.
“‘The purpose of mandatory reporter laws is to resolve a conflict of interest.’
The reason for the failure to report might indeed have been a conflict of interest. The purpose of the mandatory reporter laws are to get people to report.”
Yes, that’s the way we want the conflict of interest resolved.
“A mandatory reporter who is IDENTIFIABLE as a witness MAY be excoriated in the press, however, mandatory reporters are generally not wearing signs IDing them as mandatory reporters.”
Right. Not the point, but true enough.
The point is, even if a mandatory reporter is 100% correct that, in the situation they were in, they didn’t have to make a report, they can expect to be ripped to shreds (figuratively) if it turns out there WAS abuse, and they did not report what they knew.
“Except when prohibited by attorney-client privilege…”
Isn’t preventing ongoing harm to a third party an exception to the privilege in Georgia? In the model rules, breaking confidentiality is allowed “to comply with other law or a court order”.
In any case, I can’t think of any other profession which has a “mandatory no reporter” role. If so, anyone who isn’t a lawyer wouldn’t have to switch between “mandatory reporter” and “mandatory no reporter” roles.
I don’t understand it. While they respond to something like this there are always reports of real abuse ignored. I heard someone where say that CPS should be abolished. And the police should be trained to respond to these phone calls in a manner that doesn’t end up with them standing at the door of parents whose kids are in the backyard. All these complains about children not getting enough exercise but no one acknowledges that a parent cannot stand/sit at the park or even the backyard for hours every day so they can. We need to cook dinner, clean the house and god knows what and it’s sad that this means that everyone under 12 has to stay inside too when that is being done. Of course they then default to screens or fighting. I heard another story on here about the police being called by a neighbor because they saw a little girl running and “thought she was hurt”. Not crying or anything just… running. Seeing a child run was so foreign to them already that they had to call the cops, I guess. In cases like that and the case above, I don’t understand why people don’t go to the parents first. The mom was right there, 50 feet away. That is NOT an unsupervised child to me! God forbid, she was dealing with something else at the time and instead of having a whining, bored child or one with a screen shoved in her hand at her feet while she deals with the tree workers.