Jump to content

Menu

X-Post: CPS Help Please


Recommended Posts

Update:

I joined HSLDA out of fear. Apparently, you can join after the fact.  So I got real legal advice. Go me!  He suggested a middle road because that was what made us most comfortable.  We will keep the meeting, invite the cps worker into our living room and have brief conversation with her.  My mother will play with the children in the adjoining play room or dinning room.  So they will be able to see the kids.  She will not tour our house.  If we become uncomfortable, I will excuse myself to talk to legal council (ie HSLDA).

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 174
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

So the update:   It went way better then could be expected.  My 3 yo napped through the whole thing.  The big boys were great---vibrant, happy, obedient, and obviously smart.   They nicely played

I believe it.  In that moment, I didn't care one whit about my rights.  I totally understand and agree with the argument that if I let her in and cooperate openly and so do most everyone else, then he

You are not legally obligated to allow anyone in your house without a warrant. When CPS came to my door, I did allow them basic access because I was confused and (obviously) panicked. When they r

5 minutes ago, Ananda said:

Update:

I joined HSLDA out of fear. Apparently, you can join after the fact.  So I got real legal advice. Go me!  He suggested a middle road because that was what made us most comfortable.  We will keep the meeting, invite the cps worker into our living room and have brief conversation with her.  My mother will play with the children in the adjoining play room or dinning room.  So they will be able to see the kids.  She will not tour our house.  If we become uncomfortable, I will excuse myself to talk to legal council (ie HSLDA).

That sounds like a great plan 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just say that personally I'm also worried constantly at a low level about CPS.  We don't homeschool, we are wealthy, we have beds for everyone and lots of food, we don't use corporal punishment, we don't do any drugs, and we keep a pretty darned clean house.

However, we have family who do not like us because we differ from them politically and as a result are somewhat (in some cases very) estranged.  We're super conservative and as we've experienced bias from our family members about this, who are liberal, I'm not hugely confident we wouldn't experience bias from social workers, who skew liberal (by the numbers).  Not necessarily as a fact of their liberalism - maybe it would be the same if we were super liberal and our family and most social workers were conservative  - but because my experience is that people can get really caught up in these forms of self-identity and act aggressively to people unlike them (that goes both ways). We eat a mostly vegan diet with some fish, which family members have called "fanatic" and "deprivation of a normal childhood" and etc.   We co-sleep.  Sometimes we stay up late and sleep in.  We don't own a TV or nintendo or cell phones.  The kids do a lot of chores. (not by like farm standards, but by middle class suburb standards). We don't have as much furniture as you would think a family of 9 people would have.  These things all make me nervous, which is a shame. 

CPS has been called on us multiple times.  Once, our kids were riding their bikes on the side of the road in a cul-de-sac.  Another time, CPS didn't even come, but referred us to a nonprofit that helps out with bill paying and groceries and parenting advice.  I asked them how they'd gotten our contact info, as we're in the top 5% of incomes nationally and so don't really need help with bills, and they said someone had called CPS to report us as needing help or investigation and CPS had decided not to investigate but sent our info on to these people.  I think in this case it was the landlord's agent, who showed up at the house one afternoon to do a surprise inspection (he was pretending he hadn't been able to get us on the phone or email, which is BS, but whatever) and the house was a mess as I'd been sick.  Could have been extended family, though.  Our neighbors also called the police once when she saw our 5 and 8 year olds playing in the front yard after DH left in the car.  She told the police that they had been left home alone (we only had one car).  Another time, someone called because our 9 year old was walking home from the park 3 blocks from the house and stopped to sit on a large rock next to the sidewalk at a church.  The police brought him home and explained.

So I just don't trust people, I guess.  I don't trust neighbors, I don't trust our family (they've tried to get other children in the family reassigned to members they deemed "better parents" before, literally contacting CPS and trying to get us to agree to their ideas and also contact CPS to finagle this), and I don't necessarily trust CPS, who wanted to come in our home and see our fridge and beds because our kids were riding their bikes in a cul-de-sac (I will note that the police did NOT try to do this when the kids were reported for playing in the front yard or for resting on the way home from the park).

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, moonflower said:

I'm sure it's their SOP, what I'm saying is I don't see the need to cooperate with it.  The allegation is resolved, no judge is going to issue a warrant at this point, so there's no need for the meeting, really.

 

I don't know, that seems like its making things more complicated to me.  It's not a bad practise to actually close things up with the parents, rather than just dropping the whole thing.  It's one thing if it was a real difficulty to have the meeting, but I wouldn't do it on principle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they could very easily send a letter. "Our investigation, based on allegations that your children were unregistered homeschoolers, is complete, as we found your registration under the other name.  Thanks for your time."

Maybe it's an American thing to feel very protective of personal space and suspicious of government intrusion.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Texan! Edit your post to take out the real names! Sorry...this real names thing is making me nervous!

OP...good luck today. It sounds like you have a solid plan in place. I agree with other posters that I’d be focusing lots of energy of figuring out who might have done this. Could it be someone at your co-op? I just don’t feel like neighbors would peek through your curtains and see your child wearing a pull-up. That seems far fetched to me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mmasc said:

Texan! Edit your post to take out the real names! Sorry...this real names thing is making me nervous!

OP...good luck today. It sounds like you have a solid plan in place. I agree with other posters that I’d be focusing lots of energy of figuring out who might have done this. Could it be someone at your co-op? I just don’t feel like neighbors would peek through your curtains and see your child wearing a pull-up. That seems far fetched to me. 

 

I agree it is far fetched, but we literally didn't talk about it.  So . . . also how would the neighbors know they don't follow directions.  The neighbors have kids, so they know how kids are in that regard.  . . their kids aren't angels or anything.  I am dealing with today, today.  Tomorrow I will worry about who reported us and why.  How do we prevent this from reoccurring etc.

Ananda

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

OP, I do completely support your doing what you feel most comfortable doing.  I know how hard it is to have the eye focused on you; lord knows we let CPS in when they came knocking.

But I just wish they would be less automatically invasive, and that people in general would be less automatically cowed into submitting to this invasiveness.  I think it is Wrong with a capital W for CPS to try to come into people's homes and interview their children when no allegation has been made or can be substantiated having anything to do with the home environment or treatment of children.

Again, they wanted to see inside our house because our kids were riding their bikes on the street.  They want to see inside the OP's house because they couldn't find the homeschool registration.  Neither of those things makes sense, and no judge would give them or the police a warrant to come into my house or the OP's house for these claims.  They only get to come in because they've scared the crap out of people who are afraid of having their kids taken away.  That is Abusive with a capital A.

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, moonflower said:

I'll just say that personally I'm also worried constantly at a low level about CPS.  We don't homeschool, we are wealthy, we have beds for everyone and lots of food, we don't use corporal punishment, we don't do any drugs, and we keep a pretty darned clean house.

However, we have family who do not like us because we differ from them politically and as a result are somewhat (in some cases very) estranged.  We're super conservative and as we've experienced bias from our family members about this, who are liberal, I'm not hugely confident we wouldn't experience bias from social workers, who skew liberal (by the numbers).  Not necessarily as a fact of their liberalism - maybe it would be the same if we were super liberal and our family and most social workers were conservative  - but because my experience is that people can get really caught up in these forms of self-identity and act aggressively to people unlike them (that goes both ways). We eat a mostly vegan diet with some fish, which family members have called "fanatic" and "deprivation of a normal childhood" and etc.   We co-sleep.  Sometimes we stay up late and sleep in.  We don't own a TV or nintendo or cell phones.  The kids do a lot of chores. (not by like farm standards, but by middle class suburb standards). We don't have as much furniture as you would think a family of 9 people would have.  These things all make me nervous, which is a shame. 

CPS has been called on us multiple times.  Once, our kids were riding their bikes on the side of the road in a cul-de-sac.  Another time, CPS didn't even come, but referred us to a nonprofit that helps out with bill paying and groceries and parenting advice.  I asked them how they'd gotten our contact info, as we're in the top 5% of incomes nationally and so don't really need help with bills, and they said someone had called CPS to report us as needing help or investigation and CPS had decided not to investigate but sent our info on to these people.  I think in this case it was the landlord's agent, who showed up at the house one afternoon to do a surprise inspection (he was pretending he hadn't been able to get us on the phone or email, which is BS, but whatever) and the house was a mess as I'd been sick.  Could have been extended family, though.  Our neighbors also called the police once when she saw our 5 and 8 year olds playing in the front yard after DH left in the car.  She told the police that they had been left home alone (we only had one car).  Another time, someone called because our 9 year old was walking home from the park 3 blocks from the house and stopped to sit on a large rock next to the sidewalk at a church.  The police brought him home and explained.

So I just don't trust people, I guess.  I don't trust neighbors, I don't trust our family (they've tried to get other children in the family reassigned to members they deemed "better parents" before, literally contacting CPS and trying to get us to agree to their ideas and also contact CPS to finagle this), and I don't necessarily trust CPS, who wanted to come in our home and see our fridge and beds because our kids were riding their bikes in a cul-de-sac (I will note that the police did NOT try to do this when the kids were reported for playing in the front yard or for resting on the way home from the park).

 

 

Where do you live?  I'm always curious when I hear stories like this.  At our old home in a very nice neighborhood there was a boy who told the whole neighborhood about his mom's meth use being how she lost 100 pounds in 2 months.  His sister's boyfriend was apparently the major dealer in town.  I and other neighbors called police and CPS multiple times for huge issues regarding that child's safety, and no one ever showed up except police looking to arrest the drug dealer who apparently had an open warrant.

I mean obviously I've seen the news stories about police and CPS being called for letting 10 year old children play in the park across the street from their home, but I've never lived in an area where a dispatcher wouldn't openly scoff at the caller for that, let alone ask to go into anyone's home.  These regional differences are fascinating.

FWIW, experienced social workers might be liberal about some things (wanting mental health care for everyone rather than putting people in prison), but IME they aren't on the super liberal end of the spectrum.  Generally people who are trying to get adults to take responsibility for themselves are pretty pragmatic, center leaning right, except for wanting health care.

They're also not going to be upset that you give your kids broccoli, beans, and fish for dinner. It does sound like you need to cut off your family.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Katy said:

 

Where do you live?  I'm always curious when I hear stories like this.  At our old home in a very nice neighborhood there was a boy who told the whole neighborhood about his mom's meth use being how she lost 100 pounds in 2 months.  His sister's boyfriend was apparently the major dealer in town.  I and other neighbors called police and CPS multiple times for huge issues regarding that child's safety, and no one ever showed up except police looking to arrest the drug dealer who apparently had an open warrant.

I mean obviously I've seen the news stories about police and CPS being called for letting 10 year old children play in the park across the street from their home, but I've never lived in an area where a dispatcher wouldn't openly scoff at the caller for that, let alone ask to go into anyone's home.  These regional differences are fascinating.

FWIW, experienced social workers might be liberal about some things (wanting mental health care for everyone rather than putting people in prison), but IME they aren't on the super liberal end of the spectrum.  Generally people who are trying to get adults to take responsibility for themselves are pretty pragmatic, center leaning right, except for wanting health care.

They're also not going to be upset that you give your kids broccoli, beans, and fish for dinner. It does sound like you need to cut off your family.

 

We lived at the time in the midwest, in a middle/upper-middle (but our area was definitely middle) class suburb.

I would like to believe that CPS would be reasonable and realistic about things, I really would.  I am just not 100% convinced.  Our extended family (on both sides!) are intelligent, professional, "normal," seemingly reasonable people.  One of them is even a social worker! And yet they've acted in ways that seem to me to be totally and completely irrational.

I dunno.  I do think there's less class/race/wealth privilege in an area where everyone is middle class, white, and well above the poverty line, and can at least hide drug use more successfully.  We're not exceptionally functional people for this area, kwim?  We're averagish, except we have a lot of kids.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, moonflower said:

OP, I do completely support your doing what you feel most comfortable doing.  I know how hard it is to have the eye focused on you; lord knows we let CPS in when they came knocking.

But I just wish they would be less automatically invasive, and that people in general would be less automatically cowed into submitting to this invasiveness.  I think it is Wrong with a capital W for CPS to try to come into people's homes and interview their children when no allegation has been made or can be substantiated having anything to do with the home environment or treatment of children.

Again, they wanted to see inside our house because our kids were riding their bikes on the street.  They want to see inside the OP's house because they couldn't find the homeschool registration.  Neither of those things makes sense, and no judge would give them or the police a warrant to come into my house or the OP's house for these claims.  They only get to come in because they've scared the crap out of people who are afraid of having their kids taken away.  That is Abusive with a capital A.

 

In defense of social workers, there have been plenty of deadly home school abuse cases in the news in the last few years.  They don't know if you're homeschooling for academic reasons because you love your kids, or if you're a nutcase who doesn't want them exposed to any mandatory reporters because they spend most of their time locked in a closet and your home is covered in feces.  It's pretty easy to come into a slightly messy but not unsanitary home, see the kids are relaxed and happy and have their toys spread everywhere and your pets are cared for and more easily dismiss a case as a nosy neighbor than they can from the doorstep. Not that you NEED to let them in.  Obviously you have a constitutional right not to.  But unless someone who works at CPS has a personal vendetta against you they're not out to take your kids away.  The last thing they want to do is spend the next 12 hours caring for your kids, going to court to explain why your kids need help, and finding them a place to stay.  It's literally not what they want to do.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused by them needing to come for a second visit and others saying it is SOP. I guess it varies by state?

CPS was called on us once when the kids were little because someone thought I left them home alone. Dh and I only had one car because he worked less than 10 minutes away (but not pedestrian friendly). A CPS worker showed up with two police officers. They came in and woke up the kids and took pictures of them. One officer walked right up to dd's crib while she was sleeping and picked her up. It was awful and I was terrified. We have a lawyer in the family and he said if it happened again to not let them in without a warrant but at the time I just couldn't think straight. 

CPS never asked to come back for a second visit or to speak with dh at all since they could see for themselves I was home and our car was not so the complaint was unfounded. They sent a letter a few weeks later saying our case was closed. 

Good luck!

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Katy said:

 

In defense of social workers, there have been plenty of deadly home school abuse cases in the news in the last few years.  They don't know if you're homeschooling for academic reasons because you love your kids, or if you're a nutcase who doesn't want them exposed to any mandatory reporters because they spend most of their time locked in a closet and your home is covered in feces.  It's pretty easy to come into a slightly messy but not unsanitary home, see the kids are relaxed and happy and have their toys spread everywhere and your pets are cared for and more easily dismiss a case as a nosy neighbor than they can from the doorstep. Not that you NEED to let them in.  Obviously you have a constitutional right not to.  But unless someone who works at CPS has a personal vendetta against you they're not out to take your kids away.  The last thing they want to do is spend the next 12 hours caring for your kids, going to court to explain why your kids need help, and finding them a place to stay.  It's literally not what they want to do.

 

Oh, I totally get that part of where they're coming from - here in the KC area there were a few high profile cases in the last several years where CPS severely dropped the ball with actual abuse.  There was one girl who was kept in a closet and came out at like 11 weighing 45lb, or something.  Stuff like that.  I get where the fear on their part comes from, and I get where it comes from with the police too, who see a lot of dysfunction and the last thing they want to deal with is more dysfunction.  But I also think that

A. it makes them more likely to have an inflated sense of just how much dysfunction there is

and

B. if society thinks homeschooling (and again we don't homeschool) is a risk factor for abuse, they need to mandate home inspections for homeschoolers (and all other non-schooled kids, like the non-daycare under-4 crowd).  The fact of being a homeschooler, in my state anyway, does not give anyone a constitutional right to come into my house and inspect it for abuse or neglect.  If that does become a law in my state, (and I'm not a homeschooler!!!!) I'll move.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

And if CPS is allowed and encouraged to persist in this idea that they have access on demand, without a warrant, to people's homes and children, that does put people at risk for government overreach.  There's a reason the 4th amendment exists, it's not because the government is by default always benign.  I don't think a lot of people even know you can tell CPS no (while many more people seem to know that you can tell the cops no).

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, moonflower said:

 

 

Oh, I totally get that part of where they're coming from - here in the KC area there were a few high profile cases in the last several years where CPS severely dropped the ball with actual abuse.  There was one girl who was kept in a closet and came out at like 11 weighing 45lb, or something.  Stuff like that.  I get where the fear on their part comes from, and I get where it comes from with the police too, who see a lot of dysfunction and the last thing they want to deal with is more dysfunction.  But I also think that

A. it makes them more likely to have an inflated sense of just how much dysfunction there is

and

B. if society thinks homeschooling (and again we don't homeschool) is a risk factor for abuse, they need to mandate home inspections for homeschoolers (and all other non-schooled kids, like the non-daycare under-4 crowd).  The fact of being a homeschooler, in my state anyway, does not give anyone a constitutional right to come into my house and inspect it for abuse or neglect.  If that does become a law in my state, (and I'm not a homeschooler!!!!) I'll move.

 

A law like that wouldn't be constitutional and it wouldn't stay on the books for long if some misguided state did manage to pass it anyway. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Evanthe said:

 

The family who lives in the house next to mine has been reported and nothing has happened to them.  I don't want to post details, but if our CPS did nothing to that family, they're not going to do anything to anyone else.  The conditions inside the house are so bad that we can't open our windows on the side of the house - the smell wafts into our house.  If the kids are outside playing and we go outside, we can actually smell the kids from our front porch.  I'm also pretty certain the kids don't own jackets/coats.

I know there are a lot of scary stories on the internet about CPS.  My sister is a defense attorney and she says it is actually very, very hard for CPS to take anyone's kids away.  She said you could even be an addict and CPS will still find a way to help you keep your kids.

Maybe it depends on where you live...  Good luck with whatever you decide, OP!  

 

It mostly definitely does depend which state and probably which county even you live in.  In LA, in the late 80s, kids in care were coming from parents who were incarcerated- it was that bad.  I went into a horrible home with the police on a ride along and they told me that CPS did nothing to help that house and the thousands like it.  

It also very much depends on what the allegation is.  Neglect is ignored usually no matter how bad it is.  Emotional abuse- never dealt with.  Physical --- maybe- depending on state, county, and severity, and sexual----- pull out all the stops.  

The problem is that they lied to the OP.   It obviously wasn't about homeschool papers.  Pull-ups have nothing to do with homeschooling or not.  But regressive behavior (and mind you, OP, I am not jumping to this conclusion because regressive behavior can happen for a myriad of reasons) is sometimes seen as a response to sexual abuse.   Again, I am not conflating using pull-ups with anything nefarious happening at all.  But I worked in law enforcement and I saw the big difference when rote-minded, non-criticallicy thinking fellow officers fell into suspecting wrong people because of an overreliance on broad potential causalities and not critically analyzing the situation in front of their eyes versus the more experienced or more savvy or more intelligent officers who would look at the whole picture, not just rely on hassling the more common suspects.  So 

 I also do not know if CPS is covered by the same rules like law enforcement in that they are quasi- LE people, and can lie to get confessions.  I know the Supreme Court has specifically said police and other LE can do this (and they do this all the time to get suspects to confess) but I do not know if there have been any rulings about CPS.   Not only is lying a common interrogative technique but also trying to be sympathetic to the suspect.  

I agree with Amanda in VT and Aelthryth the Texan that all that should be done is give them the letter and no further interviews.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ananda said:

The report just stated that the children are currently homeschooled. The report stated that ds9 has been wearing a pull-up and that the children will have difficulty following directions.

 

What does it mean that “the children WILL have difficulty following directions”?  Is someone trying to tell fortunes that if a child is homeschooled and wearing pullups that one day they won’t be able to follow directions?  Or was the CPS worker using poor grammar and the report meant that the children DO CURRENTLY have difficulty following directions?  I wonder if it’s true that she can’t show you the actual allegations.  It’s a problem if it’s true since her grammar might be wrong so you don’t even know what the allegations actually are—a crystal ball reading on your kid’s future ability to follow directions vs current inability to follow directions.  

You might already be having the meeting now, but the above is one reason I’d have probably preferred having a lawyer involved.  I would be very nervous working with someone (the CPS worker) who doesn’t communicate well.

 

In regards to who called CPS:  Did your son go anywhere wearing the pullups?  Tag along on any errands?  Go to homeschool co-op?  Does he have a way to contact his friends and talk/text about it and a kid told a parent?  Has he worn them in the past or was this the first time since he was potty trained?  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pediatrician doesn't make sense because he'd know why the pull-ups!

I vote nosy neighbor.  We had a neighbor like that.  She had a lot of cats and not much else to do and called both CPS and the police for things like "kids riding bikes" and "kids playing in front yard."  I would not have put peering into our front windows, seeing a 9yo in a pull-up, and calling CPS past her.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joker said:

I'm confused by them needing to come for a second visit and others saying it is SOP. I guess it varies by state?

CPS was called on us once when the kids were little because someone thought I left them home alone. Dh and I only had one car because he worked less than 10 minutes away (but not pedestrian friendly). A CPS worker showed up with two police officers. They came in and woke up the kids and took pictures of them. One officer walked right up to dd's crib while she was sleeping and picked her up. It was awful and I was terrified. We have a lawyer in the family and he said if it happened again to not let them in without a warrant but at the time I just couldn't think straight. 

CPS never asked to come back for a second visit or to speak with dh at all since they could see for themselves I was home and our car was not so the complaint was unfounded. They sent a letter a few weeks later saying our case was closed. 

Good luck!

 

I suggested it might be their normal practice to do a follow up visit.  It could just be that office, or even that particular worker who likes to do it that way - I wasn't suggesting everyone is required to do so.  I'd expect that is something that could be pretty variable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s my thought on the “who knew about the pull-ups?”  OP, could your DH have said something to a coworker?  Something like, “my poor 9yo is so sick he’s wearing a pull-up so he doesn’t poop his pants.”  Hopefully he doesn’t have those kinds of coworkers, but it could be a source.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bluegoat, I agree that it is probably a normal practice for either this office, county, state, individual worker, whatever.

I just don't think it is a good practice as I think it habituates people to thinking that a social worker has the right to come in your home even if you don't want them there and they have no legal reason to be there.

It would be, to me, like if the police had a SOP of searching your car when they issue a speeding ticket.  Not a legally mandated one, but if it were just regular for them to say, here's the ticket, pay by this date, now I'm just going to take a look in the backseat and trunk, all right?  Every Single Time They Pull You Over, regardless of any specific suspicion.  Oh, it's just the SOP for this policeman, he likes to take a look in the trunk and the backseat, just to make sure people who are speeding aren't also hiding drugs or guns or dead bodies or anything in there. ETA: don't worry, if you don't have any drugs in the back you've got nothing to worry about!  The police have enough trouble with actual criminals, they don't want to impound your car and arrest you, they just want to make sure you're acting within the law, and since you are, no worries, just let them look in the back!

Nope, nope, nope.  Not a good SOP.  A letter is a great SOP, non-invasive and appropriate to the situation.

Edited by moonflower
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, athena1277 said:

Here’s my thought on the “who knew about the pull-ups?”  OP, could your DH have said something to a coworker?  Something like, “my poor 9yo is so sick he’s wearing a pull-up so he doesn’t poop his pants.”  Hopefully he doesn’t have those kinds of coworkers, but it could be a source.

I think it more likely the 6 or 9 yo playing with a friend and totally randomly seeing a child across the room in a pull-up or seeing a package of pull-ups and saying out loud that "9 yo had to wear pull-ups this week" and some adult overhearing.  Kids will say the strangest things at the strangest times and move on like they never said it. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, moonflower said:

Maybe it's an American thing to feel very protective of personal space and suspicious of government intrusion.

Yes. It's *totally* an American thing. We fought a Revolution and wrote a Constitution and a Bill of Rights about that. 🙂

  • Like 12
  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, moonflower said:

Bluegoat, I agree that it is probably a normal practice for either this office, county, state, individual worker, whatever.

I just don't think it is a good practice as I think it habituates people to thinking that a social worker has the right to come in your home even if you don't want them there and they have no legal reason to be there.

It would be, to me, like if the police had a SOP of searching your car when they issue a speeding ticket.  Not a legally mandated one, but if it were just regular for them to say, here's the ticket, pay by this date, now I'm just going to take a look in the backseat and trunk, all right?  Every Single Time They Pull You Over, regardless of any specific suspicion.  Oh, it's just the SOP for this policeman, he likes to take a look in the trunk and the backseat, just to make sure people who are speeding aren't also hiding drugs or guns or dead bodies or anything in there. ETA: don't worry, if you don't have any drugs in the back you've got nothing to worry about!  The police have enough trouble with actual criminals, they don't want to impound your car and arrest you, they just want to make sure you're acting within the law, and since you are, no worries, just let them look in the back!

Nope, nope, nope.  Not a good SOP.  A letter is a great SOP, non-invasive and appropriate to the situation.


My theory on both letting CPS into my house or police searching my car, is that if everyone innocent let them do that, then saying No would become a reason to search.   

It is within my lifetime that homeschooled kids were confiscated just because they were homeschooled (was happening where and when I grew up).   Some of those bureaucrats are still working.  Just because the court smacked them down doesn't mean there aren't many that equate homeschooling with neglect and/or hiding abuse.  I've been giving thought to what I'd in the OP's position.   DD would be going to Grandparents Camp and I'd be secretly recording the follow-up interview which wouldn't be in my home.   The recording is allowed in my state.  
 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sidestepping the issue of whether you're allowed to refuse entry to your home (yes) and whether you should - I don't think you need to worry about the second visit. I think that's almost certainly just a requirement that caseworkers have to follow, just like they have to check out all calls even if they're obviously garbage. It's just butt-covering - if they didn't do the second visit and then you went on and straight-up murdered your children, they'd be the ones blamed.

It's a requirement here that child services has to make two trips per call, anyway, and pretty much for that reason. It doesn't mean that they are planning to swoop in and grab your kids during this second visit, it just means they want to formally close the case and move on to something more important.

Edited by Tanaqui
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Sidestepping the issue of whether you're allowed to refuse entry to your home (yes) and whether you should - I don't think you need to worry about the second visit. I think that's almost certainly just a requirement that caseworkers have to follow, just like they have to check out all calls even if they're obviously garbage. It's just butt-covering - if they didn't do the second visit and then you went on and straight-up murdered your children, they'd be the ones blamed.

It's a requirement here that child services has to make two trips per call, anyway, and pretty much for that reason. It doesn't mean that they are planning to swoop in and grab your kids during this second visit, it just means they want to formally close the case and move on to something more important.

 

I agree that the likelihood that they're looking for further problems is probably close to zero. 

This doesn't change the way I feel about their assuming access.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

So the update:  

It went way better then could be expected.  My 3 yo napped through the whole thing.  The big boys were great---vibrant, happy, obedient, and obviously smart.   They nicely played mouse trap with my mother.  We invited her right in she sat on our couch and talked to us for 1/2 an hour.  Mostly she was satisfying her curiosity about homeschooling, and commiserating about how stupid the complaint was.  She asked us a rapid fire list about risk factors: drugs, alcohol, spousal abuse etc.  We talked briefly about rules & discipline.  She never had any interest in leaving the living room.  She only talked with the children when they initiated conversation.  She was fascinated by homeschooling.

This is the text of the complaint in red, to give you an idea of how truly stupid it was: 

Caller reports that dh (34) & Ananda (33) are parents of ds9, ds6 & ds3.  According to the caller the children are homeschooled.  The caller reported that ds9 wears a pull up (like this is a habitual thing).  The caller stated that they believe ds3 also wears a pull up, but it is unknown if ds6 wears pull ups.  The caller did not speak with the parents as to why ds9 wears a pull up.  Why is this person so obsessed with pull ups?  When the caller was asked if they had any other concerns, the caller stated that the children have difficulty listening to directions, which is typical for children who are homeschooled;  (You guys are going to love that.) however, the children exhibit behaviors of not following directions beyond the norm.  The caller stated that they didn't have any other concerns at this time.  Then they provided mangled DOB's for the children.

Based on the complaint, I am certain this is someone from the YMCA, probably an employee, but maybe another parent.  So . . . that is a thing.  I am just so flabbergasted at the stupidity.  You can see why she wasn't at all concerned.  Apparently, nothing about the call concerned CPS.  She said they would have told off the caller.  But they emailed the state department of education just to close out their file.  The department of education replied, in blue:  

I do not have a filing under the last name (dh & dc's last name).  Basics such as potty training would be considered child care and parenting responsibilities, not a curriculum choice.  :laugh:  That is the best part.  The department of education being like wtf!  

She said that she had to follow up & do the whole she-bang because the department of ed didn't have a record of us.  This is because the YMCA mangled the DOB's and our homeschool is registered under my (different) last name.  Apparently, though, most people cooperate with her.  She seemed really taken aback when I told her that many people would have refused to talk to her, to allow her access to the children and to enter the home.  She said that she couldn't get a court order, but it would raise her suspicions.  Apparently the only people who have reacted that way have been horrifically abusive or drug addicts.  She would have kept coming back until our case expired.  

Anyways, 5 days of torture because someone at the YMCA is weird about pull-ups.  Thanks.

Ananda

 

  • Like 34
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So glad to hear that it went well. I can't imagine your relief.

I don't know the laws across every state, but here, you can file a request for the name of the person who reported. A friend was reported, and she knew it could have been just a small number of people. She petitioned the court (just a form that she mailed, I think). The reporter was notified--and requested the automatic option to have her name withheld for an additional 30? 60? days.

After that time passed, the reporter's name and allegations were forwarded to my friend. Sure enough, it was a person close to her who was stupid enough to give her name and address.

(While my friend is an unconventional parent, the CPS call was unwarranted and unfounded. But it was terribly stressful, as you know.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really stuck on "not following directions". I mean, it's not great for a child to be really bad at following directions, but it certainly doesn't make me think "oh, yes, this child is abused!" If anything, it's a child who is VERY obedient and compliant who would raise those suspicions. (Not in isolation, I mean, there'd have to be other things going on for me to debate calling in the authorities.)

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so glad the visit went well, and so sorry for the stress you suffered. It sounds like the reporting person has a real bias against homeschool 😞

The couple of times we have been reported have been similarly ridiculous. The first time CPS didn't even bother to come out because the report was not at all a matter of concern to them (a young child behaving in a very normal and age appropriate way...); I only found out about that a year or so later when someone else called a complaint in and CPS did come out, the lady who came that time told me about the earlier complaint and brushed it off as not something they were worried about but I think the fact they they had received a complaint before did impact their decision to follow up on the second non-issue complaint.

sigh.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ananda said:

She seemed really taken aback when I told her that many people would have refused to talk to her, to allow her access to the children and to enter the home.  She said that she couldn't get a court order, but it would raise her suspicions.  Apparently the only people who have reacted that way have been horrifically abusive or drug addicts.  

If she truly thinks this, then she doesn't have a good understanding of or appreciation for the weight of her responsibilities or authority, or what the law requires of her. An innocent person, a non- abusive parent, can fully and lawfully cooperate with a CPS investigation without letting CPS in the house or access to the kids just because they knock at the door. The fact that she doesn't know this or think it can be true is scary, but I think pretty typical in law enforcement positions.

I'm glad the visit went well.

Edited by EmseB
  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, EmseB said:

If she truly thinks this, then she doesn't have a good understanding of or appreciation for the weight of her responsibilities or authority, or what the law requires of her. An innocent person, a non- abusive parent, can fully and lawfully cooperate with a CPS investigation without letting CPS in the house or access to the kids just because they knock at the door. The fact that she doesn't know this or think it can be true is scary, but I think pretty typical in law enforcement positions.

I'm glad the visit went well.

 

I'm glad it went well too.

this is exactly why I don't like the idea of CPS assuming access to every house.  If she couldn't get a court order to come in, that doesn't mean that your refusal to let her in means you are more likely to be guilty of some unnamed thing YOU HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN ACCUSED OF.  It means that she doesn't need to be in your house, legally or to perform her responsibilities.  Ooh, it makes me mad.

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tanaqui said:

I'm really stuck on "not following directions". I mean, it's not great for a child to be really bad at following directions, but it certainly doesn't make me think "oh, yes, this child is abused!" If anything, it's a child who is VERY obedient and compliant who would raise those suspicions. (Not in isolation, I mean, there'd have to be other things going on for me to debate calling in the authorities.)

IMO, there are a LOT of people who have no business working with children because they have zero understanding of typical behavior and immediately jump to judge and assume the worst of a family.  I avoid programs run by the park district, the Y, the school district, etc because every single time we have tried those programs, the person running them has insanely high standards of behavior for the kids.  Invariably, my little question-asker gets yelled at and I get a lecture from the instructor on "appropriate behavior", which usually means "Tell your kid to stop asking questions and follow my directions immediately, without question" (I quite literally had a teacher tell me this).  I've also had the 20-something year old park district instructor "diagnose" my kid with autism after she bullied him and made him cry.  Her total experience working with children was "Well, I have a 4 year old brother, so I think I'm good with kids".  She had grave and patronizing concerns about my kiddo because he couldn't effectively defend his opinion that he be first in line to enter the classroom and instead burst into tears.  Good grief. 

So it doesn't surprise me at all that some busy-body at the Y called CPS.  It's always the Mrs. Kravitz of the world who don't know what they are talking about but feel "empowered" because they took a 3 hour child-abuse-prevention course.     

  • Like 6
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so glad this is over for you.  

There was no "right" way to handle the question of let her in or not, so don't give yourself any grief over your decision.  

It has reminded me that I need to talk to DH about this.  Not sure what Swiss laws are about entering the home, etc.  I think CPS is a worry in the back of all of our minds, when we choose to live outside the cookie-cutter norms.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://homeschooliowa.org/wellness-checks-for-homeschoolers/

22 hours ago, Katy said:

 

A law like that wouldn't be constitutional and it wouldn't stay on the books for long if some misguided state did manage to pass it anyway. 

Totally agree with you, but they are currently debating it in both Iowa and Illinois state governments, I believe. I just had a very heated argument on Facebook about it lol

Edited by Momto5inIN
Adding link - looks like it's Iowa, not Illinois. I was arguing with someone from IL, so I was confused
  • Like 1
  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, EmseB said:

If she truly thinks this, then she doesn't have a good understanding of or appreciation for the weight of her responsibilities or authority, or what the law requires of her. An innocent person, a non- abusive parent, can fully and lawfully cooperate with a CPS investigation without letting CPS in the house or access to the kids just because they knock at the door. The fact that she doesn't know this or think it can be true is scary, but I think pretty typical in law enforcement positions.

I'm glad the visit went well.

 

But she didn't say anything about not knowing what the law said - she said she couldn't get a warrant.

She said in her experience, the only people who have in fact been uncooperative were serious abuse situations.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Momto5inIN said:

https://homeschooliowa.org/wellness-checks-for-homeschoolers/

Totally agree with you, but they are currently debating it in both Iowa and Illinois state governments, I believe. I just had a very heated argument on Facebook about it lol

There was a bill in IL as well, but it apparently has been sent to committee and is effectively dead.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

But she didn't say anything about not knowing what the law said - she said she couldn't get a warrant.

She said in her experience, the only people who have in fact been uncooperative were serious abuse situations.  

If she was truly "taken aback" that people would not talk to her or allow them access to their children and their home without consulting a lawyer, then she does not understand. 

Law enforcement officials often deliberately conflate cooperation with talking to them and doing everything they ask. There is an undercurrent (or sometimes it's overtly stated) of, "if there's nothing wrong, then of course you'd let me in/talk to your kids/address these concerns." That is a tactic to make nice people feel bad or feel guilty. Added to the fact that in a CPS case the accused does not have the right to face their accuser, nor to see a copy of the allegation, and CPS workers assume to have access to the home and kids simply because of an allegation and this worker told the op that the only people she sees putting up a fuss are abusers...there's a whole lot problematic going on.

  • Like 16
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it.  In that moment, I didn't care one whit about my rights.  I totally understand and agree with the argument that if I let her in and cooperate openly and so do most everyone else, then her experience will be that only very bad people exercise their rights.  It has a definite societal cost.  I played my part in eroding all our rights.

If it is any consolation . . . she was young and eager.  I explained the position of hslda & many homeschooler would be to cooperate only as compelled by law.  I explained why.  I briefly outlined the history.  I explained why I chose differently.  We were the first homeschoolers she had met.  She wanted to know why people homeschool.  Not why WE homeschool, but why people in general homeschool.  I listed off reasons rapid fire.  She actually read the FAQ from the department of ed's website.  She was really interested.   So it is my belief that she learned from our case.  I know she at least learned state homeschool law.  I think she heard me. . . . maybe I am thinking too much of myself.  Sorry, I am still euphoric from the relief of it all.

As to why I chose as I did.  MY CHILDREN.  I think the calculus is entirely different when it involves your children.   I genuinely thought my children were at risk.  I didn't know the specific allegations against us.  One poster speculated sexual abuse!  I would and did compromise my scruples to protect my children.  I also joined HSLDA to which I was strongly opposed.  That is a separate discussion.  I called them planning to ask them for a names of local lawyers that I could call.  They told me that I could, in fact, join with my case in progress.  I didn't even stop to think, I joined immediately.  I was impressed that their legal council moderated his response when I told him that I didn't care about my privacy or my rights.  I just wanted this closed as soon as possible.  He advised me to act as I did.  He also incidentally told me to stop taking legal advice from the hive mind.

We secretly recorded the conversation, our state is a one party consent state.  We had decided to tell her she needed a warrant if she tried to leave the open area of our living room, dinning room & play room.  She never left the couch.  We had decided to allow her to "set eyes on" each of the children and exchange pleasantries but not to interview the children.  She barely talked to them, and didn't even set eyes on my napping 3yo.  We didn't plan on cooperating with anything and everything.  She never asked of us something we weren't willing to give.   

  • Like 24
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ananda said:

I believe it.  In that moment, I didn't care one whit about my rights.  I totally understand and agree with the argument that if I let her in and cooperate openly and so do most everyone else, then her experience will be that only very bad people exercise their rights.  It has a definite societal cost.  I played my part in eroding all our rights.

If it is any consolation . . . she was young and eager.  I explained the position of hslda & many homeschooler would be to cooperate only as compelled by law.  I explained why.  I briefly outlined the history.  I explained why I chose differently.  We were the first homeschoolers she had met.  She wanted to know why people homeschool.  Not why WE homeschool, but why people in general homeschool.  I listed off reasons rapid fire.  She actually read the FAQ from the department of ed's website.  She was really interested.   So it is my belief that she learned from our case.  I know she at least learned state homeschool law.  I think she heard me. . . . maybe I am thinking too much of myself.  Sorry, I am still euphoric from the relief of it all.

As to why I chose as I did.  MY CHILDREN.  I think the calculus is entirely different when it involves your children.   I genuinely thought my children were at risk.  I didn't know the specific allegations against us.  One poster speculated sexual abuse!  I would and did compromise my scruples to protect my children.  I also joined HSLDA to which I was strongly opposed.  That is a separate discussion.  I called them planning to ask them for a names of local lawyers that I could call.  They told me that I could, in fact, join with my case in progress.  I didn't even stop to think, I joined immediately.  I was impressed that their legal council moderated his response when I told him that I didn't care about my privacy or my rights.  I just wanted this closed as soon as possible.  He advised me to act as I did.  He also incidentally told me to stop taking legal advice from the hive mind.

We secretly recorded the conversation, our state is a one party consent state.  We had decided to tell her she needed a warrant if she tried to leave the open area of our living room, dinning room & play room.  She never left the couch.  We had decided to allow her to "set eyes on" each of the children and exchange pleasantries but not to interview the children.  She barely talked to them, and didn't even set eyes on my napping 3yo.  We didn't plan on cooperating with anything and everything.  She never asked of us something we weren't willing to give.   

i think you did great and chose just the right thing for your situation! It's hard to know how you'll react in this sort of situation until you actually face it. I'm so glad that it worked out ok!

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Letting her sit on your couch is not a huge erosion of your rights. You chose to let her talk to you comfortably. By the way, I have chosen to let detectives in to talk  in comfort. They didn’t take that as an invitation to toss my house. I realize that many don’t agree with me but I have worked as a guardian ad litem so am not totally ignorant of the “system “.  I think that being pleasant and working with them to clear up the problem works in your favor most of the time. 

Edited by Jean in Newcastle
  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...