While most parents are good, loving people who care for their children appropriately, unfortunately, some do hurt or neglect their own children. It is very sad that in this day and age, some people have not grown enough to realize that children are not property. Parents cannot just do whatever they want to their children. That is why this country employees protection agencies, which go by many names, but are universally known as Children’s Protective Services, or CPS.

But, is CPS doing a good job of keeping children safe? How are families treated once they come under an agency’s radar? Are innocent families ever sucked into the system? The answers to these questions might surprise you.

CONFIGURATION OF THE SYSTEM

Since the 1960's, child abuse and neglect have evolved into "illnesses" rather than crimes. Well-intentioned social workers, doctors, and therapists believed they could treat the disease. Prosecution of abusive and neglectful parents stopped, in a large percentage of cases, and abuse and neglect were relegated to "family" or "administrative" courts, which ordered treatment plans based on the advice of these professionals.

The usual Constitutional safeguards we expect as American citizens are not available in family and administrative law. Certain rights only apply to the criminal justice system, such as being informed of your rights, having an attorney present during questioning, and being appointed an attorney if you cannot afford one.

Accused parents are also refused the right to a fair and timely trial, the right to be tried by a jury of their peers; the right to face and cross-examine their accusers, and the right to have evidence used against them only when it meets the highest standards.

Also forgotten is the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to refuse to incriminate one's self, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, the right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishments, and other due process measures. None of these protections are afforded parents accused of child maltreatment, unless and until they are criminally charged, which rarely happens.

An accused pedophile that harms other people's children has more rights and more protection of his rights, than a parent accused of maltreatment does. What is worse is the fact that the pedophile has more protection of his rights than the children do.

Children are frequently detained, interrogated, strip-searched and forced to endure intrusive physical and psychological examinations. They are removed from their homes -for vague reasons with little or no evidence- and deposited with complete strangers. Frequently, removal from home and all that it entails is far more traumatic for the child than anything in the home environment, per many former foster children who call themselves "survivors" of the system.

One of the biggest problems is the ultra lax standard of evidence allowed in such cases. All it takes is "preponderance of the evidence" which is loosely interpreted as an allegation being "more likely than not." In other words, if 51% of the evidence -which is frequently made up of second and even third-hand hearsay and a caseworker's opinion- points toward abuse, the other 49% of the evidence that may well vindicate the parent can essentially be disregarded.

With the advent of mandated reporting schemes and anonymous reporting, more and more parents are finding themselves the subjects of investigation. Many people think this is not a problem. They believe that they will be dealt with fairly, and that since they are innocent the truth will come out.

It is better to punish 100 innocents than let one abuser get away with it, better to be safe than sorry, right? But, that is not the way our system was designed. The cornerstone of our system is that every person is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. It was designed that way for a reason; the opposite does not work, and children are suffering because of it.

MANDATED REPORTED SCHEMES AND ANONYMOUS REPORTING

Most people do not realize that it only takes one --often completely anonymous-- phone call to change life as you and your children know it. Good names are tarnished by being listed on abuse registries, and some parents will lose custody of their children even though there was no real evidence of abuse or neglect.

Mandated reporters frequently over-report in order to protect themselves from liability. They can be charged with a misdemeanor, fined, or lose their licenses if they fail to report abuse. On the other hand, they are rarely, if ever, held accountable for making inaccurate reports, even if the report turns out to be malicious.

Anonymous reporting allows any person to make an accusation at any time, without proof and without revealing his or her name. This means that even if someone has made a false accusation of maltreatment against a parent out of spite, the parent will have a difficult time proving it since he or she is never allowed to know whom the accuser is.

STATISTICS AND OUTCOMES

Abuse is over-reported, overwhelming the already overburdened system, as evidenced by the fact that out of approximately 3,000,000 abuse and neglect reports taken each year, over 2,000,000 are unsubstantiated. These numbers have remained fairly consistent since 1990.

The reason is that the standards are so lax and definitions so vague, that any parent can be painted as abusive. Advocates of the system claim that accused parents are guilty, but that there just isn't enough evidence against them to prove it. With the ultra lax standard used in such cases, workers would have to be completely incompetent to allow 2,000,000 guilty parents each year to get away with maltreating their children.

If these figures remain consistent, this indicates that twenty million families are needlessly intruded upon in a decade. Twenty million families cannot all be wrong.

One reason the number of cases that are actually substantiated is so high, is that a CPS worker does not have to prove abuse. If he or she cannot find something specific, but feels that a parent does not measure up to certain standards, the worker can simply say he or she feels the child is “at risk” of future maltreatment. This is called "erring on the side of the child."

An at risk assessment is based on a scientifically unproven, variable and discriminatory checklist of indicators coupled with a caseworker’s subjective opinion. Caseworkers are trained to look for abuse rather than looking for the truth. Indicators include things like being a single parent, being poor or uneducated, having more than three children, or having been abused as a child. None of these things proves that abuse is imminent, and not every abused child grows up to be an abuser.

Many parents, classified in the "at risk" category end up losing custody of their children even though there is no evidence of abuse or neglect having occurred. The exact number is unknown, since at risk cases are not counted separately but are instead included in the tally of substantiated reports. For more information on statistics, visit the National Clearinghouse for Child Abuse and Neglect Information.

What about cases that were actually substantiated? How many of those children were torn from their parents, their siblings, their home, friends, neighborhood, church, school, and extended family due to serious and intentional injuries or extreme neglect? Far fewer than most people believe. Many people think that children are only taken in extreme cases such as those that are sensationalized in the media.

The largest percent of cases, consistently about 60% nationwide, are taken from home because of neglect allegations. But, are these cases of willful neglect on the part of parents who have the ability and resources to care for their children but choose not to? Or, are these cases of families living in poverty? Since many children are taken due to homelessness, inadequate shelter, lack of utilities, and other similar situations, it appears to be the latter.

Observe the state of Pennsylvania. As they yet again restructured their system, they finally made some progress. They placed a housing specialist in every CPS office. Poor families are helped to find adequate housing and the necessary financial assistance to obtain it. Since this new program began, the number of “neglect” cases in Pennsylvania has fallen consistently and dramatically.

Examining cases of alleged physical abuse, we see many children taken away because they received a spanking, even in states where spanking is not illegal and is not defined by law as abuse. According to court cases, many of these were not cases where children were beaten or even spanked roughly with resultant injuries. They are often cases of a traditionally practiced form of discipline.

How is this possible? It is possible because CPS interprets the laws according to their own "protocols" and defines physical discipline as abusive, or at the least, as an indicator that there is a risk of future maltreatment.

REAL REFORM

Horror stories are far too frequent, and this includes not just stories of abusive parents, but also horrific stories of children abused in state care. If the state cannot protect the child better than the parent can, and cannot guarantee his safety, the child should not be removed from the home.

Agencies continue to ask for more money and attempt to hire more workers. Limiting the current caseload to actual cases of real abuse and neglect would work far better. Improved training for workers who screen hotline calls and investigate allegations would be far more worthwhile than hiring more people to go through the motions.

All fifty states failed the latest federal child welfare review. Since past reform efforts have yet to improve child safety, it is time to try something else. If we keep doing what we are doing, we can expect to keep getting what we are getting.

Re-naming and "restructuring" agencies hasn't changed the fact that children are not safer. It is time to institute real reform efforts and truly protect this nation's most vulnerable citizens.

The following suggestions have been compiled through research and discussion with reform effort activists:

1. Treat child abuse as the crime that it is and mandate that investigations be performed by law enforcement. Law enforcement officers are trained to investigate and gather evidence. This change would keep real abusers from getting away with their crimes, while far fewer falsely accused parents would lose their children.

2. Repeal mandated reporting laws and end anonymous reporting. The system would not be so overwhelmed with inaccurate and fabricated reports if mandated reporters were not forced to report every scraped knee, and other reporters were required to identify themselves. Rather than wasting precious resources investigating innocent parents, children in truly dire situations could get the help they deserve.

3. Criminally prosecute workers where appropriate, and do not allow them to continue working in protective services if they abuse or allow abuse of a child. The same should apply if they fabricate evidence against a parent, if they lie in court or alter documents, or if they are criminally negligent toward a child in their care.

4. Require more education and experience before workers are allowed to come into contact with families and are allowed to make life-altering decisions that affect the entire family. Most "caseworkers" today are not even licensed social workers, though many represent themselves as such. In some states, all it requires is a two-year degree -in any field- to become a caseworker.

5. Require completely independent oversight, independent investigations of agency wrongdoing, and an independent hotline and investigative team for foster care and institutional abuse. Children are left in substandard and dangerous placements, often far worse than the homes they were taken from.

6. Adjust the federal monetary incentives to reflect proven success in child safety, rather than rewarding the ever-increasing placements, terminations of parental rights, and quickie adoptions. Right now states receive federal dollars when children are removed, placed in foster care, or adopted. They receive very little for family preservation or reunification, which creates a twisted incentive to remove children (See Title IV-E of the Social Security Act).

7. Disallow the use of any "risk assessment" tool that contains scientifically unproven, variable, and discriminatory indicators. Children should not be removed from home unless real abuse or neglect has been proven.

8. Create real avenues for filing complaints. In many states, parents can only file formal complaints against licensed social workers and as noted, most caseworkers are not licensed. Conveniently, many child protection agencies claim to have few complaints.

9. Guarantee due process. As it stands right now, a person who murders a child has more protection of his rights than a parent that has had an anonymous allegation made against him or her. He also has more rights than a child caught up in a maltreatment investigation.

10. Create clear, concise definitions of what constitutes abuse or neglect. Disallow vague definitions and put an end to agencies overstepping their authority and “interpreting” the law differently than the legislature intended.