Talk:Child protective services/Archive 1

Can we please get some phone numbers in here!
This article is as about as helpful as [profanity deleted]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.117.103.181 (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Questioning the incomplete description of Child Protective Services.
There are numerous functions of Child Protective Services listed on this page, however, there are many more services not indicated.

CPS provides foster care for children found to have been abused or neglected by their caretaker. They also provide foster care to children who have been abandoned due to death or incompetence.

CPS provides medical case management for disabled children in need of excessive care. CPS provides respite care to parents of disabled children, as well as foster caregivers.

CPS provides foster care training and licensing.

Programs within the Child Protective Services agencies provide children who are not adoptable with life skills as they begin to 'age out' of the system.They make sure all kids are safe with the people they are living with.

CPS provides subsidies to children who are placed in kinship care in an effort to maintain family units.

CPS provides a number of services to the community, the most notable being the removal of children for real, or imagined abuse and neglect.

I think it would be fair to note the full extent of the services provided by CPS.

I would also like to mention that another user outlines here the removal of children and the reluctance of CPS to speak out about the removal.

CPS operates under HIPPA guidlines. They are unable, legally, to present protected information to the public without release by authorized individuals.

BJHSCCW 06:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)BJHSCCW


 * If I may share some of my own knowledge:
 * I don't know if this is a federal thing or a state thing, but in my state all of the services you discussed are critical to CPS's functioning but are not provided by CPS per se. They are provided by parallel programs that are also under the Department of Social Services.  (Perhaps this is splitting hairs?  If so, please ignore the rest of this entry.)  Why this is, I'm not sure.  And if this is true statewide or nationwide, I have no idea.  (Perhaps, as suggested by this article's first footnote, it's a state-by-state thing?)  Perhaps, once it is known whether this division of services is county-wide or state-wide or nationwide, an appropriate sentence/paragraph could be added to this article (e.g., "CPS is dependent on other DSS programs for the recruitment, training, etc., of foster care providers, on-going services for children who age out of foster care, etc."?) ?
 * Also, again, this might be a state-by-state thing but, where I live, CPS's confidentiality rules are not defined by HIPPA but are mandated by long-standing state laws (and practices? policy?) requiring that all information be kept confidential with a few exceptions such as:
 * Certain specific information (e.g., whether or not a report is being investigated and what its outcome is) is provided to the reporter.
 * Other information might be provided to others on a "need-to-know" basis (e.g., when contacting others for collateral information during an investigation, although in many states a family's approval for such a contact is required in most cases).
 * If a worker is providing or assisting the family with services then, if the family permits, a worker can share the family's information with another professional (e.g., mental health provider).
 * The vast majority of information (e.g., case dictation) can only be revealed if a judge orders it (e.g., during a criminal court proceeding). (Various types of summaries are also provided during CPS-related child-placement court proceedings.)
 * I've also been told that, in my state, when a child (whose family has been previously involved with CPS) turns 18 y/o they are allowed to look at their own case record (although the reporter's name and identifying information would be blacked out).
 * Hope this might be of use. 24.136.229.74 04:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

All agree that we can delete gross incivility and profanity?
Show the above person the number pad on a telephone, and the numbers 9 - 1 - 1 State and local departments of Social Services are commonly found in telephone books and State Government Websites, as well. Good Luck! Homebuilding 75.41.35.141 (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Child and family services
I must admit that I am not an expert on the way the child protection system operates in the United States, but as far as I can tell, the current article on Child and family services seems to be rather US-centric (using terms such as "the nation") - even though it appears to try to present a generalist historical overview - which I think may be better merged in here. Would contributors with a better understanding of the topic agree? I must admit, the organisation of all of the articles relating to this topic seem as though they could do with restructuring. DWaterson (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on my reading of the Child and family services article, it appears to be talking about related but different organizations. CPS (as described in this article) is a governmental agency; the agencies discussed in Child and family services appear to be non-governmental agencies that receive referrals from CPS (and other?) agencies.  (What might be confusing is that "Child & Family Services" [where each word begins with a capital letter] might be the name that some U.S. states have chosen to call their CPS agency.)  So, without currently having time to read the other article all the way through, I'm guessing these "child and family services" agencies includes organizations that provide help with mental-health services, etc.  (Does the other article elaborate on specific services in any particular way?)  In other words: these articles appear to deal with two different (though related) institutions and thus, at least in my thinking, should not be merged as they are currently worded.
 * Tangentally, FWIW, I'm a little concerned about the other article's history's section lacking any citations/references. In addition, the other article contains some scary inaccuracies.  For instance, in it's "Evolution" section it states:
 * The formal system through which society responds to child abuse and neglect is now largely a governmental one. Today, primary responsibility for child protection is vested in public child protective services (CPS) agencies, which receive, investigate, and respond to reports of child abuse and neglect. These agencies are usually linked to child welfare departments with broader responsibilities which include foster care and adoption. Usually at this point, the parents lose their right to take care of their children because they are seen to be unfit parents....
 * This last sentence appears to me to be either misleading or untrue. (Governmental stats for this are available on-line.)  The vast majority of families that are assessed/investigated by CPS do not have their children removed from the home.  (I think the last time I checked my local agency's stats, it was something like only 10% are removed and less than 5% are removed permanently.)  Right after stating this, the Child and family services article goes onto state:
 * Today, it is against the law to not report child abuse if evident.
 * Again, for better or worse, this is not true. Frankly, I once thought it was true myself but my agency's attorney subsequently pointed out that the law makes a distinction between "may," "should," "shall," "might," and "must" report. At the end of this CPS article, it has links to state laws that describe what is what.  Essentially, I think many (perhaps most? all?) U.S. state laws articulate that people "should" or "shall" report; I'm not sure which, if any, say that everyone is required ("must") report (though I think all U.S. states require that medical personnel report child maltreatment since the late 1960's, etc.).
 * I don't watch this page (basically just to keep my blood pressure down :-) ) so if you'd like me to respond further, please leave me a note on my talk page or send me an e-mail. (I know I used a lot of weasel words in the above tangent -- so if you need the assertions firmed up and can't find that stats yourself on the web, just let me know and give me time :-) )  Hope this might help,
 * Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Child and Family Services
The thing that seems to be confusing some is the terminology used (especially since we do so much privatization in this field these days). Child and Family Services is one of the many terms used for the department of the executive branch in each state that addresses child welfare issues. Florida's is called the Department of Children and Families (DCF). Child Protective Services is a term that is used overall to describe all of these departments (government run and privatized). Some states may refer to their child welfare department as Child Protection Services, but this term is used universally. I think the two sections should be combined and only the CPS title should be used. Either that or they should be merged and labeled child welfare. Child welfare is the only truly neutral term that doesn't specify any particular group in any way whatsoever. If they were merged, then no clarification between the public and private sector services would be needed. - [unsigned]


 * I hear at least two concerns here:
 * (1) Only "some" agencies performing the function described by this article are called "Child Protective Services"; perhaps suggesting that the name is not used widely enough to be identified as this article's title.
 * (2) There are "government run and privatized" agencies called "Child Protective Services"; thus indicating that this article's identifying CPS as a governmental agency is inadequate, that the term covers a broad spectrum of "child welfare" institutions.
 * Regarding the issue of how broadly this term is used, according to a U.S. federal government web site's definition of "Child Protective Services" at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/cps/cpso.cfm#cps:
 * Child Protective Services (CPS) - the designated social services agency (in most States) to receive reports, investigate, and provide intervention and treatment services to children and families in which child maltreatment has occurred. Frequently, this agency is located within larger public social service agencies, such as Departments of Social Services.
 * I infer from the parenthetical term "most States" that "Child Protective Services (CPS)" is in fact the most commonly used designation for this specific U.S. governmental agency. (Less frequently used terms should be redirected to this page then, per WP standards, yes?)  Am I misinterpreting this quote or is its source different than what I preceive it to be or perhaps am I missing the point (all very possible :-) ).
 * In regards to privatized agencies, my recollection is that Florida is the only state that has done this and thus such is a (significant) exception (perhaps needing to be mentioned explicitly or by end note in this article?). Outside of this exceptional aspect of the Florida agency, my understanding is that Florida's agency must still provide the government-defined CPS functions described in the above quote and by this article.  To put it another way, I ask sincerely (acknowledging my own unlimited ignorance), outside of Florida's privatization exception, are there other agencies that are called "Child Protective Services" that are not public and/or do not perform the functions described by this article?
 * Regarding the title "child welfare," I agree that such a phrase covers both public and private sector institutions and an article covering such is merited and should cover some of the information here (perhaps as is or should be done at Child protection?); but, my intuition (again, very open to being corrected here!) is that, in terms of WP standards, the information in this article is cohesive enough and lengthy enough (though lacking well-roundedness, etc.) to merit a standalone article.
 * Obviously, I don't expect the information I've presented in this entry to be completely persuasive but hope it provides some ideas conducive to at least moving forward with the expressed concerns. Best,
 * Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section needs more sourcing
These are horrific allegations, and need to be properly sourced. Jtrainor (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the entire Diane Booth section, as it is a copyvio from http://kidjacked.com/conspiracy/booth/abduction_allegations.asp . Jtrainor (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Recommend Listing Neglect Before Abuse
Easy to find data most strongly reveal that neglect is the reason for State action to remove a child from a parent from five to ten times as often as abuse. The lack of supervision, safety and care are far more common than frank or excessive physical violence. I fully realize the apparent need to list them alphabetically, but the clear and obvious importance of the difference should be reflected by neglect being listed first. Homebuilding 75.41.35.141 (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The criticism section is completely biased, and general. Though there is sufficient criticism for CPS around the country, there are some jurisdictions that provide adequate services to children and families. Also -- the concept of "parental engagement" versus detaining children is not yet proven, and has led to problems throughout the United States where children that should have been detained were not, and were further (sometimes egregiously) victimized by the parent or parents. There is little consistency from one jurisdiction to the next. The idea that CPS will be scrapped in every city and replaced with something better is pretty weak on details, and extremely naive. The CPS system overall is difficult, complicated, and often problematic. Unfortunately, not a lot of talk is happening out there about alternatives. Anyone who has worked in or with CPS knows that much of the work they do is never cut and dry, and far too often "gray".Clogan98 (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

where is criticism?
well? 199.117.69.8 (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC) CPS in most cases are a vital agency i have never thought otherwise, but in this case the dropped the ball. yea i know they go to work everyday do thie job go home, but they took my son from me 3 years ago havent seen him since! that was my world. my wife was the person most responsibe for the loss, i know here we go another person who did't do anything wrong. i would go to work come home for lunch and walk in the door multiple times this occured, and the kids one mine were naked running around the house with fecies smeared all over them and whatever they touched. wife passed out cold on the couch. and not wake up even after i got there, house filthy, my son was 1 years old when this happend. of course i coulnt go back to work. eventualy i lost my job and guess who got blAmed for that. then the adultrys once at the strake house closet with the cook, by the way thats an elderly home where she was supposed to b taking care of! then she ended up in mental hospitol where she slept with anouther patient. cps was involved with her 3 other times b 4 i met her so who would u give the child to well cps gave him to her. and she has taken me out of his life he dosnt now me. cps ruined 2 lives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.182.92 (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent news involving CPS
First link is dead, second link - while it does contain ref'd material, wiki content for this ref seems Pro CPS while ref'd article is critical. Suggest rewrite of this section.Daffydavid (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Reorganization
I moved several sections to make the flow of the article more natural. I added back some of the material removed by Innab as it clearly refers to CPS. I deleted the POV tag as it's almost 2 years old and there is no discussion. Please discuss changes here as wholesale deletion and reinsertion is pointless. Happy editing.Daffydavid (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think now it looks much better. The new flow makes more sense, thanks.

Nancy Schaefer report "The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services"
Regarding text removed from main page -- Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer published a report "The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services".

Addition of this line is fine but needs a summary of the points made in the report not 8000 characters worth of verbatim quoting. For example there is a book and a judgement from a Texas court in the Criticism section which are both summarized in one paragraph each. I don't have the time to do it myself but a concise summary would probably be a good addition to the article. As always, Happy editing.Daffydavid (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Attempting
OK I'll try to do that and summarize each of Schaefer's 21 or so points and put the report reference back in. It won't be easy as each point is already summarized well by Schaefer. For example,
 * it is often pointed out that the NCCAN reported on "Perpetrators of Maltreatment"
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Maltreatment per 100,000 US children !! CPS !! Parents
 * Physical Abuse || 160 || 59
 * Sexual Abuse || 112 || 13
 * Neglect || 410 || 241
 * Medical Neglect || 14 || 12
 * Fatalities || 6.4 || 1.5
 * }
 * and Nancy already further summarized all of this summary as "The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1998 reported that six times :as many children died in foster care than in the general public and that once removed to official “safety”, these children are far more likely to :suffer abuse, including sexual molestation than in the general population. Think what that number is today ten years later!"
 * Arguably the table would be a more appropriate presentation of that point than Nancy's summary on the point. She left out most of the statistics :that were summarized already. If someone wants to add this in place of the point, they should reference the NCCAN report directly or at least :another source that does.
 * Fatalities || 6.4 || 1.5
 * }
 * and Nancy already further summarized all of this summary as "The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1998 reported that six times :as many children died in foster care than in the general public and that once removed to official “safety”, these children are far more likely to :suffer abuse, including sexual molestation than in the general population. Think what that number is today ten years later!"
 * Arguably the table would be a more appropriate presentation of that point than Nancy's summary on the point. She left out most of the statistics :that were summarized already. If someone wants to add this in place of the point, they should reference the NCCAN report directly or at least :another source that does.
 * Arguably the table would be a more appropriate presentation of that point than Nancy's summary on the point. She left out most of the statistics :that were summarized already. If someone wants to add this in place of the point, they should reference the NCCAN report directly or at least :another source that does.
 * Arguably the table would be a more appropriate presentation of that point than Nancy's summary on the point. She left out most of the statistics :that were summarized already. If someone wants to add this in place of the point, they should reference the NCCAN report directly or at least :another source that does.

If it's not satisfactory please only delete the parts that are problematic rather than to revert all the work. Thanks.

For reference I'm also moving the points here for reference from the page history here in case someone else wants to attempt to better paraphrase them into the main article...

Schaefer's points verbatim
There are state employees, lawyers, court investigators, guardian ad litems, court personnel, and judges. There are psychologists, and psychiatrists, counselors, caseworkers, therapists, foster parents, adoptive parents, and on and on. All are looking to the children in state custody to provide job security. Parents do not realize that the social workers are the glue that hold “the system” together that funds the court, funds the court appointed attorneys, and the multiple other jobs including the “system’s” psychiatrists, therapists, their own attorneys and others.
 * "that poor parents very often are targeted to lose their children because they do not have the where-with-all to hire lawyers and fight the system. Being poor does not mean you are not a good parent or that you do not love your child, or that your child should be removed and placed with strangers;
 * that all parents are capable of making mistakes and that making a mistake does not mean your children are to be removed from the home. Even if the home is not perfect, it is home; and that’s where a child is the safest and where he or she wants to be, with family;
 * that parenting classes, anger management classes, counseling referrals, therapy classes and on and on are demanded of parents with no compassion by the system even while the parents are at work and while their children are separated from them. (some times parents are required to pay for the programs) This can take months or even years and it emotionally devastates both children and parents. Parents are victimized by “the system” that makes a profit for holding children longer and “bonuses” for not returning children to their parents;
 * that caseworkers and social workers are very often guilty of fraud. They withhold and destroy evidence. They fabricate evidence and they seek to terminate parental rights unnecessarily. However, when charges are made against Child Protective Services, the charges are ignored;
 * that the separation of families and the “snatching of children” is growing as a business because local governments have grown accustomed to having these taxpayer dollars to balance their ever-expanding budgets;
 * that Child Protective Services and Juvenile Court can always hide behind a confidentiality clause in order to protect their decisions and keep the funds flowing. There should be open records and “court watches”! Look who is being paid!
 * that The Adoption and the Safe Families Act, set in motion first in 1974 by Walter Mondale and later in 1997 by President Bill Clinton, offered cash “bonuses” to the states for every child they adopted out of foster care. In order to receive the “adoption incentive bonuses” local child protective services need more children. They must have merchandise (children) that sells and you must have plenty so the buyer can choose. Some counties are known to give a $4,000 to $6,000 bonus for each child adopted out to strangers and an additional $2,000 for a “special needs” child. Employees work to keep the federal dollars flowing;
 * State Departments of Human Resources (DHR) and affiliates are given a baseline number of expected adoptions based on population. For every child DHR and CPS can get adopted, there is the bonus of $4,000 or maybe $6,000. But that is only the beginning figure in the formula in which each bonus is multiplied by the percentage that the State has managed to exceed its baseline adoption number. Therefore States and local communities work hard to reach their goals for increased numbers of adoptions for children in foster care.
 * that there is double dipping. The funding continues as long as the child is out of the home. There is funding for foster care then when a child is placed with a new family, then “adoption bonus funds” are available. When a child is placed in a mental health facility and is on 16 drugs per day, like two children of a constituent of mine, more funds are involved and so is Medicaid;
 * As you can see this program is ordered from the very top and run by Health and Human Resources. This is why victims of CPS get no help from their legislators. It explains why my bill, SB 415 suffered such defeat in the Judicial Committee, why I was cut off at every juncture. Legislators and Governors must remember who funds their paychecks.
 * that there are no financial resources and no real drive to unite a family and help keep them together or provide effective care;
 * that the incentive for social workers to return children to their parents quickly after taking them has disappeared and who in protective services will step up to the plate and say, “This must end! No one, because they are all in the system together and a system with no leader and no clear policies will always fail the children. Just look at the waste in government that is forced upon the tax payer;
 * that the “Policy Manuel” is considered “the last word” for CPS/DFCS. However, it is too long, too confusing, poorly written and does not take the law into consideration;
 * that if the lives of children were improved by removing them from their homes, there might be a greater need for protective services, but today children are not safer. Children, of whom I am aware, have been raped and impregnated in foster care;
 * It is a known fact that children are in much more danger in foster care than they are in their own home even though home may not be perfect.
 * that some parents are even told if they want to see their children or grandchildren, they must divorce their spouse. Many, who are under privileged, feeling they have no option, will divorce and then just continue to live together. This is an anti-family policy, but parents will do anything to get their children home with them. However, when the parents cooperate with Child Protective Services, their behavior is interpreted as guilt when nothing could be further from the truth.
 * Fathers, (non-custodial parents) I must add, are oftentimes treated as criminals without access to visit or even see their own children and have child support payments strangling the very life out of them;
 * that the Foster Parents Bill of Rights does not stress that a foster parent is there temporarily to care for a child until the child can be returned home. Many foster parents today use the Foster Parent Bill of Rights as a means to hire a lawyer and seek to adopt the child placed in their care from the real parents, who are desperately trying to get their child home and out of the system. Recently in Atlanta, a young couple learning to be new parents and loving it, were told that because of an anonymous complaint, their daughter would be taken into custody by the State DFCS. The couple was devastated and then was required by DFCS to take parenting classes, alcohol counseling and psychological evaluations if they wanted to get their child back. All of the courses cost money for which most parents are required to pay. While in their anxiety and turmoil to get their child home, the baby was left for hours in a car to die in the heat in her car seat by a foster parent who forgot about the child. This should never have happened. It is tragic. In many cases after the parents have jumped through all the hoops, they still do not get their child. As long as the child is not returned, there is money for the agency, for foster parents, for adoptive parents, and for the State.
 * that tax dollars are being used to keep this gigantic system afloat, yet the victims, parents, grandparents, guardians and especially the children, are charged for the system’s services.
 * that grandparents have called from all over the State of Georgia and from other states trying to get custody of their grandchildren. CPS claims relatives are contacted, but there are many many cases that prove differently. Grandparents who lose their grandchildren to strangers have lost their own flesh and blood. The children lose their family heritage and grandparents, and parents too, lose all connections to their heirs.
 * that The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1998 reported that six times as many children died in foster care than in the general public and that once removed to official “safety”, these children are far more likely to suffer abuse, including sexual molestation than in the general population. Think what that number is today ten years later!
 * That according to the California Little Hoover Commission Report in 2003, 30% to 70% of the children in California group homes do not belong there and should not have been removed from their homes."

Condensed
You are welcome to fine tune it. I may have deleted some important criticisms in an attempt to condense it, or been too verbose on some points. Please check and revise as needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.110.47 (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a great respect for Nancy Schaefer who was murdered right after she published "The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services" report with suspicious circumstances surrounding her death. I think we should publish some key notes of the report, however I do agree that it should be condenced to meed Wiki standards. I think now we have a good summary of the report, thanks for your help. Innab (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That would be fine with me but if I were to revert to the original myself, I would likely have been blocked from further editing it (Wikipedia three revert rule). If there's a consensus then I prefer her original to my paraphrase. Or perhaps you can go through her original and paraphrase her key points that I may have missed or even misunderstood.


 * Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.110.47 (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You did a good job on summarizing it. I just combined some of the notes so they take less space in the article. Innab (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Innab conspiracy theories have no place in this article and your timeline is inaccurate, which coincidentally is actually why I started this post - an inaccurate dating. The date added on the reference for Nancy Schaefer's report is wrong but I note an alleged update and wonder if this is where the date came from or is it just wrong?Daffydavid (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right, the date of the report was incorrect. I did not add the date, but I think it should be November 16, 2007. Still, Nancy was an advokate for reunion of the children in CPS system with their natural parents, until her murder. Innab (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Texas 2008 Raid of YFZ Ranch
Why is this section here in the article, and in it's current state? It is basically the same text as found in a section of YFZ Ranch. If there isn't going to be anything new or different here, there should just be a See also to YFZ Ranch & be done with it. -- 63.224.135.113 (talk) 05:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I checked out the news article that was footnoted, it is terribly biased.  While this raid was noteworthy when it happened, I do not believe it will still retains enough importance to have its own section.  Since the previous comment seemed to be from May 2008, if no one else objects I'm going to remove the text in a couple of days and leave the "See Also" link.Tanktimus (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC) I agree. I also think that the article is outdated. It needs new information added to it if it is going to be under the CPS. I know that the case is no longer pending. Also, I thought there was little abuse found on the ranch (by no means do I think 400 children should be in a society of polygamy, but was abuse in occurence? Just wondering. Kristen46 (talk)

The source is biased? No kidding? It doesn't matter. Wikipedia is only based on reproducing what is verifiable as being said by establishment sources. It's verifiable from many mainstream media sources (who have likely slanted the story heavily in FAVOR of CPS). Consider that the reason CPS is noteworthy is because of these scandals that have propelled it into the mainstream. If you delete this paragraph, why not delete entire article? This particular small paragraph is important because it demonstrates that CPS is militant (conducts raids) and has highly subjective and debatable standards (polygamous communities are not against any laws). This particular incident is one of MANY angles for criticism (look through the criticism of CPS already removed from this article) but happens to be one of the first (in mainstream), biggest, and most well supported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dream2000 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to claim that CPS isn't noteworthy, only that they raid on the YFZ ranch might not be be in a few years. Furthermore, polygamy IS agains the law in all 50 states, therefore while the polygymous entity may not in and of itself be illegal, if members of those organization practice polygamy the members are in violation of the law.  In fact, CPS did not intervene because of polygamy, but because of accusations of sexual abuse of minors involved in "Spiritual marriages" with adults.  I have re-read the article in question, a third party was quoted in the article saying that some of the accusations are unfounded while others are a matter of point of view.  I will not remove the paragraph, but I will make corrections to the paragraph in question.Tanktimus (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

suggestion
I suggest moving "polygamist" into the article about YFZ Ranch, since it appears here twice and not there even once. It seems that would be a better place for it. Since polygamy is stressed here it gives the false impression that non-polygamous communities are not at risk of being raided in that manner. Yet the justification for the raid on them was actually pedophilia. Any objections?

This is an important case because of the sheer number of children picked up, and because CPS claimed that they were following common procedures. The press and legal help jumped on this, but the vast majority of victims of CPS attacks does not get that kind of attention or legal assistance. This case brought those operating procedures to light. The implication is that many more families suffer this kind of treatment without the recognition. I agree that it does belong here as an important historical case. 72.234.110.47 (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean by "it's mentioned here twice". It requires clean-up, but so does the Yfz ranch article. Could you clarify what you mean please? Daffydavid (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I read too fast and thought it said "polygamist community" twice, but the first time it says YFZ Ranch polygamist community'" and the second time it says "polygamist compound" immediately thereafter. Nevertheless, it just seemed awkward to be so repetitive at first (and still does), and irrelevant to the CPS case after it caught my attention. I clicked the YFZ Ranch link thinking that's where it should be mentioned, and it doesn't show up there where it would be more appropriate except in a phrase "scrutiny from the media, anti-polygamy activists".

It just seemed that the article on YFZ Ranch would be better for their polygamy practice to be discussed rather than here. Of course there's still some missing citation, etc. as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.110.47 (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The heading "recent news" also seems inappropriate. Maybe "notable cases" or even "Raiding of RFZ Ranch" or a line that indicates exiling hundreds of kids from their families in an entire community. That's the reason it's such a significant notorious case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.110.47 (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that this block seem to be out-of-date. I think we should remove it and put just a brief note in the "History" block. 22:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Perpetrator Table
I had to remove the Perpetrator Table, because I could not find the reliable source of the data. In fact I found the "Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data Systems - National statistics on child abuse and neglect", but the data there contradict the table, see: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/ (block "Child Abuse & Neglect Research") or http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm99/cm99.pdf

If you can find me a verifiable source for the data, I would be happy to put it back. Also, may be, we need another capturing of the table? Innab (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticism Section, con't.
The first paragraph of this section is ridiculously biased, without a single quote or citation to buffer against the slant. I'm removing the first sentence fragment, but I'll leave in the section about the "survey" that apparently shows that everyone loves CPS. It's not appropriate in the context of the criticism section in the first place, but it also has terrible citation. That should be the next thing to be cut, but if someone wants to find that article and confirm the survey, it should at least be moved from this section. 128.227.57.231 (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph is somewhat biased, but does come from a published book. However, it should be pointed out that the book is 16 years old. Since then, many CPS systems have worked to prevent removals whenver possilbe. Also, the reference in the second paragraph leads to a powerpoint presentation that has a few references in the last slide, but does not have any interenal references. I believe this qualifies as original research. Also, there should be some discussion of disproportionality. Any thoughts? Tanktimus (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I am unclear on why people are debating the content in the criticism section. It is titled as criticism and is referenced as such. If this section makes the article appear unbiased then adding a section of CPS successes would make more sense then critiquing this section. CPS employs a well oiled press machine, so this information should not be hard to come by.Daffydavid (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

To make this more of a resource for those who are wondering what law, if any, governs CPS conduct/misconduct, I suggest a legal authorities section. This is a hot area of law right now with a lot of new developments coming out of the 9th circuit. I would recommend a section devoted to Parent's rights when faced with a CPS investigation or action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.17.205 (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

References need to be improved.
Pecora et al. (1992), p. 231 -- This is reference 1. Is it referring to a book, a journal article or something else? This is unacceptable. --Daffydavid (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

general problem
The agencies in the various states are independent. The complaints about one do not necessarily reflect on the others. The article needs to be divided accordingly. This article should be representing the general issues over the provision and nature of these services. Obviously, individual abuses can add up to a pattern, and there is apparently criticism agains the overall role of all such services. Only that part belongs here. Otherwise it's like having an article on Electronics where the various complaints against all electronics companies are included.  DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Schaefer
My removal of Nancy Schaefer's list of grievances against CPS was reverted because she was a senator, and this somehow makes her an RS on the subject. Being a senator does not in itself imply a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; in fact I think most people would argue the opposite. Her report is also self-published, and therefore may not be used for claims about third parties (such as CPS). --JFH (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Senator Schaefer was a living witness at the time that she produced that report. She is not now a living self-publishing person. but a historical figure since her murder, and therefore her work should not be restricted by the self-published guideline. She is an authority in that she was an official sought out by hundreds of families whom she documented that she was trying to help including reporting before the UN. Due to privacy laws, much of what is available about CPS is self-published by that organization, and since there is a financial incentive to report in their own favor, it is important to relieve the natural bias in favor of their continued expanding funding. This is one of the few surviving historical documents that made it past the privacy barrier. Her testimony is important to provide reasonable balance to the article. The facts that she listed are common knowledge but neither well-published nor refuted. You may remove it if you replace it with better sources that report the same facts, but one-sided deletion like that is vandalism.  Note that there are other pages such as Computer Science definition which refer to resources that are published by their authors outside of Wikipedia, and their authors are even alive today.

72.234.110.47 (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with previous post that Senator Nancy Schaefer's comments and witness of the CPS is reliable and notable. It was a published report and she appeared in front of a news conference (I did not get a chance to find the news agencies that covered it.) The report could be found here . Serving as a senator in itself does not justify posting her comments on wikipedia but it definitely attributes a higher quality of reliability to her published works.  Caseeart (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that Schaefer's report is reliable and noticeable. Innab (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed this content from the page as it was simply copied and pasted directly from Schaefer's words, which isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. I've no objection to mentioning and linking to her comments here, even including a summary of them, but directly copying them here is not the way to do it. Robofish (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Vulnerable to vandalism
I noticed this page's edit history was full of unproductive original research and/or vandalism. Specifically, unverified criticism of the CPS and/or personal experience rants against the CPS including gross incivility. Should this page get a pending changes review? Anyoldeditor (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

South Dakota
Why is South Dakota not mentioned in the article? Many Native American children get taken away from their families for trivial reasons as opposed to the same situations in white families. Cherry picked and racial discrimination are obvious with this govt. org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.133.112 (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Spinoff "criticism" article?
The article Criticism of Child Protective Services was recently created, it seems to be a wholesale copy-paste of the "criticism" section of this article. I am tempted to nominate it for deletion as a WP:POVFORK. Is there a good reason/rationale for spinning that section of the article off? Fyddlestix (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see any reason for spin-off. It will only reduce traffic to the main website. Innab (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've BOLDly redirected it back here. No sense having the exact same content repeated in two different articles. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

What agency is in charge of the cps workers?what court hears the appeals and what is the whole truth about the bonuses
Does anyone have any answers RoseDesert (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Child Protective Services. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616105452/http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/topics/childrensaid/childrensaidsocieties/index.aspx to http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/topics/childrensaid/childrensaidsocieties/index.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110912041213/http://www.cfsrb.ca/en/cfsrb/about/history to http://www.cfsrb.ca/en/cfsrb/about/history

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Child neglect
I have concern with a child, Frances Paige Wesson who was once under CPS care. She is 14 yo and is not currently or has she been in school. This child needs to get an education. At one time when she was in school she was identified as gifted and talented and has the pathway to a reputable university; at this rate she want even graduate from high school. Recently were she is residing there was a murder of her mothers boyfriend. Please check into this. She resides at 9831 Foxmoor Curcle. Thank you. Nancysykes (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

How cps lies and manipulate you and destroying families
They say they help you they don't, they tell yu it's not there job, they say the best interest of the child and taking a child from there mother 8s the best interests in some cases it different, yu can make significant change and show it and they still use I against yu. 2600:6C46:6D00:122C:F9E5:4D2C:58B6:317A (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)