At least in my state (Washington), CPS prefers to relocate kids to nearby family members over actual foster homes, for what I hope are obvious reasons.
There is always a balancing of false-positives vs. false-negatives, in any attempt to restrict any behavior. And while I agree that the consequences of the false-positives are dire, sometimes unthinkable, CPS and its power to remove children from their homes is in response to something also dire and unthinkable.
You seem to be arguing that the consequences of a false positive vastly outweigh the consequences of a false negative. Viewing the consequences of an admittedly light-duty false negative (that is, abuse or neglect that, for one reason or another, hasn't received a CPS response), and being on the periphery of another much worse false negative (via contact with a member of the jury), I am uncertain.
Which is worse? Lacking the power to remove a child from a bad situation, or occasionally sending a child into a bad situation? I don't have a good answer for that question. I just disagree with the idea that either is indisputably worse than the other.
Its awful that there is a situation that we have to choose at all. And unambiguously, the foster system must be reformed. The OP even quotes the family's lawyer as saying that CPS disproportionately goes after poorer families ("neglect" and "poverty" can look the same, even if the cause is wildly different). But I do not think the foster system is so broken that we should abolish CPS entirely and just accept actual child abuse as unpreventable.
> But I do not think the foster system is so broken that we should abolish CPS entirely and just accept actual child abuse as unpreventable
I have not advocated for that anywhere.
> Which is worse? Lacking the power to remove a child from a bad situation, or occasionally sending a child into a bad situation
Actively using power to make someone's life worse is worse than failing to use power to make someone's life better. Even if the power is used with all of the best intentions
I think the point is rather that the system should skew extremely heavily towards inaction. For example is better to let 10 children die than falsely rehome 1.
i don't see the problem in the foster system itself (yes the system may have issues, but that's another topic)
the problem is that fostering in most cases is the wrong way to help those children. instead the parents need help. but that help needs to be provided in a way such that parents and children can stay together.
but that is not what is done. instead the children are taken away and the parents are left to themselves: go fix your problems, and then you can have your children back.
pretty much the only cases where fostering is the right choice is where children are in actual danger or the parents need to go to prison for serious crimes.
There is always a balancing of false-positives vs. false-negatives, in any attempt to restrict any behavior. And while I agree that the consequences of the false-positives are dire, sometimes unthinkable, CPS and its power to remove children from their homes is in response to something also dire and unthinkable.
You seem to be arguing that the consequences of a false positive vastly outweigh the consequences of a false negative. Viewing the consequences of an admittedly light-duty false negative (that is, abuse or neglect that, for one reason or another, hasn't received a CPS response), and being on the periphery of another much worse false negative (via contact with a member of the jury), I am uncertain.
Which is worse? Lacking the power to remove a child from a bad situation, or occasionally sending a child into a bad situation? I don't have a good answer for that question. I just disagree with the idea that either is indisputably worse than the other.
Its awful that there is a situation that we have to choose at all. And unambiguously, the foster system must be reformed. The OP even quotes the family's lawyer as saying that CPS disproportionately goes after poorer families ("neglect" and "poverty" can look the same, even if the cause is wildly different). But I do not think the foster system is so broken that we should abolish CPS entirely and just accept actual child abuse as unpreventable.