NationStates Jolt Archive

...DON'T. Unless you have good evidence. I thought the UK's Social Services (they deal with Child Abuse cases here) were bad, but yours is even more fucked up:

"For instance, in Dallas in 2003, as the result of a complaint by an Eckerd drugstore employee, a 33-year-old woman was charged with "sexual performance of a child," a second-degree felony punishable by 20 years in prison, based on a picture of her breast-feeding her 1-year-old son. Although the district attorney dropped the charges in the case, the parents had to fight for weeks to get their two children back from the Dallas County Child Protective Services."

"Following passage of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, established in 1974, states established laws that required police, lawyers, and social and medical personnel to make "good faith" reports of perceived child abuse or neglect. It is an important law, having arisen out of the fact that one in 10 children brought to hospital emergency rooms was a victim of physical abuse. But the law, under which child pornography falls, contains no provision for training personnel to identify abuse or pornographic photos. As a result, false and damning allegations have risen by the thousands in the past three decades. In fact, in most states it's a misdemeanor for law enforcement officers and health providers not to report."

"I realize no one would argue with sincere efforts to protect children from harm. As a parent, I know all too well the real dangers our kids face on a daily basis and I applaud any efforts to make their world a safer place. But our experience underscores the harm that is being inflicted on children and parents by investigations based on uninformed definitions of pornography or abuse."

"At the very least, a pair of trained legal eyes -- those of either a lawyer or a public official with specific expertise in child pornography -- should look at the evidence and make an informed decision before starting this demeaning, costly and painful process."

LINK: http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/07/18/photos/index.html

This is seriously bad - it not only causes the children unnecessary emotional distress (akin to emotional abuse in my opinion), it also means people who may have otherwise called Child Services may not in the future when a child really IS in danger, and a child abuse investigation against someone could mean people doing horrible things to them - which could put their children in further danger.

Note: I'm NOT contradicting myself. I stand by what I've said in earlier posts about when a CHILD makes a complaint of abuse - but the above case (and apparently many others) was started by a single complaint (from an adult) based on innocent camping photos.

Eh. I'd call regardless the consequences, if I believed real abuse was going on. It's a shame when the law is misapplied, but there's still an obligation to act. A legal obligation for teachers and other professionals, and an ethical one for the rest of us.

Eh. I'd call regardless the consequences, if I believed real abuse was going on. It's a shame when the law is misapplied, but there's still an obligation to act. A legal obligation for teachers and other professionals, and an ethical one for the rest of us.

Ordinarily I would agree with you 100%. But someone called over innocent family camping photos, and Child Services went on a witchhunt. Just read the full (long) story to see how much it affected the innocent family.

I'm not saying don't call. Just don't call unless you have good evidence - because you could do more harm than if you hadn't called.

so you read one article about one case out of hundreds of thousands and conclude that calling child services is a bad idea?

Ordinarily I would agree with you 100%. But someone called over innocent family camping photos, and Child Services went on a witchhunt. Just read the full (long) story to see how much it affected the innocent family.

I'm not saying don't call. Just don't call unless you have good evidence - because you could do more harm than if you hadn't called.

Reading the whole thing, it didn't look like a witch hunt but a very careful investigation.

I told her I couldn't believe anybody would find a photograph of a 3-year-old making her way into a lake to skinny-dip titillating. there are alot of sick fucks out there. I would rather that they are looked for and not waited till some 3yr old is raped and killed. Especially when they don't know who took those photos.

The reactions of the two parents are understandable, but realize had the service NOT been doing their investigation, they would've been arrested by the photos alone (yes, it has happened.)

The trauma they suffered is sad. but so is the trauma suffered by parents who lost their child to some sick person.

and what they went/are going through is what people accused of rape, Murder, Drug trafficking, and other crimes go through, even if they are found innocent.

so what's the solution. Don't investigate unless you have 100% concrete evidence or someone's child is hurt/raped/killed?

so you read one article about one case out of hundreds of thousands and conclude that calling child services is a bad idea?

READ the article PLEASE. It's not just ONE case, it's thousands - and what happened is worse than not calling - by calling based on some innocent photos, and because of the over-reaction of Child Services, children have been harmed

What we need are a series of very painful lawsuits against the state(s) that misapply such laws. That'll learn 'em. While we're at it, a series of painful lawsuits against the states (mis)applying zero-tolerance policies in schools would be nice too. If there's one thing that's always true, it's that you can best control corporations and governments by viciously attacking their wallets.

..
" in Dallas in 2003, as the result of a complaint by an Eckerd drugstore employee, a 33-year-old woman was charged with "sexual performance of a child," a second-degree felony punishable by 20 years in prison, based on a picture of her breast-feeding her 1-year-old son.If the Law allows them to charge you with "sexual performance of a child," for a breast-feeding picture.. then the Law is retarded.

What we need are a series of very painful lawsuits against the state(s) that misapply such laws. That'll learn 'em. While we're at it, a series of painful lawsuits against the states (mis)applying zero-tolerance policies in schools would be nice too. If there's one thing that's always true, it's that you can best control corporations and governments by viciously attacking their wallets.

that can backfire to the point where real evidence won't be reported in because people will fear the lawsuits should they be wrong.

people have said here that they would rather 10 criminals go free than one innocent persecuted.

would they rather 10 children raped and killed to avoid one innocent family be investigated?

so what's the solution. Don't investigate unless you have 100% concrete evidence or someone's child is hurt/raped/killed?the solution is to modify the puritan stuputory Laws that allows them to charge you with "sexual performance of a child," for a breast-feeding picture.

"stuputory Laws" 2007® by OccNEWS

the solution is to modify the puritan stuputory Laws that allows them to charge you with "sexual performance of a child," for a breast-feeding picture.

"stuputory Laws" 2007® by OccNEWS

ok, that's fair.

but what of naked pics of kids running around and playing and swiming?

Kids making funny pics while holding empty beer cans, bottles, cigs, and other adult items normally kept out of kids reach?

READ the article PLEASE. It's not just ONE case, it's thousands - and what happened is worse than not calling - by calling based on some innocent photos, and because of the over-reaction of Child Services, children have been harmed

im an american, you think i dont know what happens here?

perhaps you meant to suggest that one should be cautious in reporting suspect photographs to social services.

American child services are the equivalence of something like the gestapo. They can threaten anyone so answer to no one.

but what of naked pics of kids running around and playing and swiming?since I have no problem with Nudist camping sites.. I cant have a problem with this particular family..



Kids making funny pics while holding empty beer cans, bottles, cigs...?#1 I did not see any "cigs"
#2 alcohol empty cans are reason enough to interview the 8 years old (alone).. and his teachers.

but, at that point in time.. I see absolutely no reason to interview Coworkers and Friends.

since I have no problem with Nudist camping sites.. I cant have a problem with this particular family.. but we're not talking about this family, we're talking about the pics in general. so yes, pics of naked children playing in various environs... like their bedrooms, back yards, bathtub, camping, etc...


#1 I did not see any "cigs"
#2 alcohol empty cans are reason enough to interview the 8 years old (alone).. and his teachers.

but, at that point in time.. I see absolutely no reason to interview Coworkers and Friends.

kids can and do make funny pics. granted that family didn't have cigs, but my niece made one. it was with an unlit, still wrapped cigar, but what if Child Services found it?

Interviewing Co workers and Friends are used to establish a behavior pattern. the questions won't be "you ever see [X] wanking off to kiddie porn" but more about the children and parent's behavior and any unusual incidents.

Interviewing Co workers and Friends are used to establish a behavior pattern. the questions won't be "you ever see [X] wanking off to kiddie porn" but more about the children and parent's behavior and any unusual incidents.I understand the need to Interview Coworkers and Friends, If there is "something" at the Kid or teachers interviews.

The way I see it: the first level of investigation is the Kids and Parents, separate.
Second level is Teachers, Doctors, grand-parents and other family.

Third level is friends. and coworkers last -for obvious reasons-

I understand the need to Interview Coworkers and Friends, If there is "something" at the Kid or teachers interviews.

The way I see it: the first level of investigation is the Kids and Parents, separate.
Second level is Teachers, Doctors, grand-parents and other family.

Third level is friends. and coworkers last -for obvious reasons-
but then that's only assuming that any... child molestation is happening at the Parent/Child level. what co-worker/friends interviews can establish is an adult/anychild.

they may not molest their children but the photos can lead to a behavior pattern. also remember that in the case pointed to by the link. it was the parent's friends that had the camera and got it developed. so it wasn't their children's pics at all.

Yes our child service are fucked up because on one hand we have to protect our kids on the other hands, they're our slaves and should have no rights.

Your parent could be slapping your rear silly every day for no reason and not be taken away. If anything, they take the child away.

I had a recent experience with this and it didn't work out as a rational system would have allowed.

1 - Train the people well so they don't do this crap.

2- Yes, the government SHOULD be held liable for any misdeeds, including giving a child five days of hell. I know that, if it happened to me as a kid, I'd want the head of the fuckers on a platter; heck, it nearly DID back in Colombia in the 90s. I hope the FARC tortured the guys that threatened me back then to death. Granted, it wasn't a child abuse scare so much as a "people wanted to keep us there so they decided to threaten to keep the 9-year old so the whole family wouldn't leave". Were it up to me the Colombian government would be paying us damages until César Gavíria had to sell his useless heart. And that only for the THREAT of holding me there. Do you know how damaging this kind of event can be to a kid? If I still hate them for daring to do what they did (I was 9-10 and the ordeal took about thirty minutes), what do you think FIVE DAYS would do to a FIVE-YEAR-OLD? Spending five days forced to be away from their parents like this can scar a child for life.

I used to work in child services in Florida, and remember reading this story about 3 years ago and being very upset by it. One of the major reasons I got out of the field was the fact that I had a problem with what I saw as a violation of the privacy of families based on little if any evidence.

On the other hand, despite handling approximately 200 investigations and knowing of hundreds of others being handled by coworkers, I NEVER saw anything nearly as egregious as the story.

As far as training goes, I think the training I received was adequate but not super. But I also think that a main problem is the fact that the workers come in with their own preconceived notions and try as they may it is hard to give those up. Perhaps worse than that is the fact that workers are scared to death about losing their jobs b/c some kid ends up dead or it comes out that they failed to uncover some abuse on an investigation. The entire world of these workers is filled with paranoia and the realization that their superiors in the organization will NOT support them if one of their cases goes bad.

As far as interviewing friends and coworkers, here is how we did it... each investigation, regardless of what the interview of the kids and parents turned up, required (by statute) us to speak to a minimum of 2 "collateral contacts". Usually these were teachers, but were often neighbors, extended family, family friends. We wouldn't typically interview more than 2 unless there were some indications of actual abuse, but even then we wouldn't just talk to everybody the family knew. There was quite an emphasis on the family's secrecy and we would only speak to persons who may have had relevant info (doctors, law enforcement, etc).

As far as false reporting goes, it is actually a crime to knowingly make a false report. But that is a damned hard standard to reach or prove. And even when it is obvious that a report was intentionally falsified, it usually wasn't worth it to follow up on.

Finally, somebody talked about suing the pants off the state. Unfortunately, there's a little thing called sovereign immunity. The state has to give its consent to be sued, usually by statute. And in my state, the legislature has allowed suits against the state for money damages but it is capped (if I remember right, about $100,000). Of course, injunctive relief is available but that doesn't do much.

You know, the system wouldn't be so bad if American citizens weren't so fucking crazy.

First of all, people actually use a call to child services as a kind of revenge, and for the most petty things. When I was a child, one of my mother's co-workers reported alleged abuse (completely non-existent, I assure you) over some overblown personal issue. The case was very quickly dropped (largely because the woman had never, in fact, seen me or my brother at all, let alone witnessed any abuse), but it was still a very uncomfortable situation for the family.

On principle, I think that child abuse allegations should be pursued immediately and aggressively.

But that principle depends very much on a certain degree of restraint when it comes to actually making allegations of abuse.

I don't know what the solution is.

...DON'T. Unless you have good evidence. I thought the UK's Social Services (they deal with Child Abuse cases here) were bad, but yours is even more fucked up:

"For instance, in Dallas in 2003, as the result of a complaint by an Eckerd drugstore employee, a 33-year-old woman was charged with "sexual performance of a child," a second-degree felony punishable by 20 years in prison, based on a picture of her breast-feeding her 1-year-old son. Although the district attorney dropped the charges in the case, the parents had to fight for weeks to get their two children back from the Dallas County Child Protective Services."

"Following passage of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, established in 1974, states established laws that required police, lawyers, and social and medical personnel to make "good faith" reports of perceived child abuse or neglect. It is an important law, having arisen out of the fact that one in 10 children brought to hospital emergency rooms was a victim of physical abuse. But the law, under which child pornography falls, contains no provision for training personnel to identify abuse or pornographic photos. As a result, false and damning allegations have risen by the thousands in the past three decades. In fact, in most states it's a misdemeanor for law enforcement officers and health providers not to report."

"I realize no one would argue with sincere efforts to protect children from harm. As a parent, I know all too well the real dangers our kids face on a daily basis and I applaud any efforts to make their world a safer place. But our experience underscores the harm that is being inflicted on children and parents by investigations based on uninformed definitions of pornography or abuse."

"At the very least, a pair of trained legal eyes -- those of either a lawyer or a public official with specific expertise in child pornography -- should look at the evidence and make an informed decision before starting this demeaning, costly and painful process."

LINK: http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/07/18/photos/index.html

This is seriously bad - it not only causes the children unnecessary emotional distress (akin to emotional abuse in my opinion), it also means people who may have otherwise called Child Services may not in the future when a child really IS in danger, and a child abuse investigation against someone could mean people doing horrible things to them - which could put their children in further danger.

Note: I'm NOT contradicting myself. I stand by what I've said in earlier posts about when a CHILD makes a complaint of abuse - but the above case (and apparently many others) was started by a single complaint (from an adult) based on innocent camping photos.

As an educator, I am a mandated reporter. I see something fishy with a kid in school and DON'T report it, my ass can land in jail.

Sorry. As inconvenient as it may seem, it's better to go through the hassle than end up with another Nixzmarie Brown.

If the Law allows them to charge you with "sexual performance of a child," for a breast-feeding picture.. then the Law is retarded.

Funny you miss the very next sentence:

Although the district attorney dropped the charges in the case,

Ordinarily I would agree with you 100%. But someone called over innocent family camping photos, and Child Services went on a witchhunt. Just read the full (long) story to see how much it affected the innocent family.

I'm not saying don't call. Just don't call unless you have good evidence - because you could do more harm than if you hadn't called.

sometimes child services sucks. Most of the time they do not, I was very thankful as a child that the department of children and families pulled me out of my house and put me in foster care for a while. I got to sleep in a bed for 3 months, got food, didn't get put into the oven or beat with electrical cords, it was a sweet life. It's too bad my mom's freaking lawyer got them to send me back home. :(

Just because some child services people are freaking idiots is not a reason to let people continue to abuse a child. If you think something is not right in a situation 90% of the time you are right.......and if you are not 90% of the time child services does a real investigation and drops it if nothing is wrong. My family called child services on me about a year ago, said I abused the kids and was neglecting them, they came, they got a warrant, they looked at medical records and talked to the kids, they dropped it. Worked perfectly.

Ohhh!

A girl I know was telling me how this one kid was telling the CS people that his parents weren't feeding him. They went to the house and found all these pizza boxes, so they figured he was lying..

About the 3rd time this happened, they marked one of the boxes, to see if they were feeding him, or pretending.. Next time they went back, the marked box was still there..

Sad, isn't it?

*didn't read the OP*

so what's the solution. Don't investigate unless you have 100% concrete evidence or someone's child is hurt/raped/killed?

At least more damning evidence than a picture of a breastfeeding mother.

Definitely a bad idea to let the gov't tell you how to raise your own kid.

Definitely a bad idea to let the gov't tell you how to raise your own kid.

there is a law in my state that says they can't snatch the kids unless they are in "imminent danger", which means they are about to starve to death, are too dehydrated, or are probably going to die from their injuries.

mostly it works.

Definitely a bad idea to let the gov't tell you how to raise your own kid.

its definitely a good idea to let the government have the power to tell you what you cant do to your child. the first successful child protection lawsuit had to be prosecuted under animal protection laws.

they are your kids but there are things you cant do to them.

Definitely a bad idea to let the gov't tell you how to raise your own kid.

In theory, I trust the government more than parents. A more respectable government like the Soviet Union or Israel...that has experience in community raising.

I'm not saying don't call. Just don't call unless you have good evidence - because you could do more harm than if you hadn't called.

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/104/captainobviouslb4.jpg
http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/a/a5/Captainobvious1.jpg

We really need clear guidelines for this sort of thing. I think that the intention of the photographer, and/or the content of the picture, should be the focus - not the views of the recipient.

Sorry sweetheart, I am a mandated reporter and I am required by law to make a report if I suspect something. I have made 2 reports in my career so far and they did absolutely nothing.

Sorry sweetheart, I am a mandated reporter and I am required by law to make a report if I suspect something. I have made 2 reports in my career so far and they did absolutely nothing.

may be they don't have the man power,i know our lot don't

Problem is folks, that I have heard of CS going nutzo when there NEVER was a child in the first place, (it were a dog, and the dog, while a yap-breed, was not in any shape, way or form an abused animal....) and then completely falling down on the job when there is real abuse.

may be they don't have the man power,i know our lot don't

You mean the same people that SEND their manpower on wild goose chases such as that? It has nothing to do with lack of manpower and everything to do with being morons when deciding where to use it.

that can backfire to the point where real evidence won't be reported in because people will fear the lawsuits should they be wrong.
Usually, this is what happens when people realise that the police they have is little more than a bunch of idiots who think that breast-feeding a child is sexual abuse.


people have said here that they would rather 10 criminals go free than one innocent persecuted.

Not just "people here". One of the basical concepts in western democracies is "innocent until proven guilty", not the other way around. Usually people are "guilty until proven innocent" in dictatorships and times of violation of human rights - like the Tribunale Speciale of the Fascist era, or Stalin's "purges", or the Terror in the French Revolution...

would they rather 10 children raped and killed to avoid one innocent family be investigated?

This isn't about one innocent family being investigated or children being raped: this is about one innocent family being held GUILTY WITHOUT TRIAL, or even the proper completion of the investigation. Your "10 children raped and killed" is a pitiful argument, and a reality-distorting one, too.

uh.........no. It seems that the kids were pulled pending an investigation, and then after the investigation the kids were returned and the charges were dropped. I didn't see any "guilty" anywhere.

Smunk, don't confuse the issue with FACTS.

This isn't about one innocent family being investigated or children being raped: this is about one innocent family being held GUILTY WITHOUT TRIAL, or even the proper completion of the investigation. Your "10 children raped and killed" is a pitiful argument, and a reality-distorting one, too.
uh.........no. It seems that the kids were pulled pending an investigation, and then after the investigation the kids were returned and the charges were dropped. I didn't see any "guilty" anywhere.

Smunk, don't confuse the issue with FACTS.

well, yeah. I have had a job before where I was a mandated reporter, it's scary responsibility.

"For instance, in Dallas in 2003, as the result of a complaint by an Eckerd drugstore employee, a 33-year-old woman was charged with "sexual performance of a child," a second-degree felony punishable by 20 years in prison, based on a picture of her breast-feeding her 1-year-old son. Although the district attorney dropped the charges in the case, the parents had to fight for weeks to get their two children back from the Dallas County Child Protective Services."
vention and Treatment Act, established in 1974, states established laws that required police, lawyers, and social and medical personnel to make "good faith" reports of perceived child abuse or neglect. It is an important law, having arisen out of the fact that one in 10 children brought to hospital emergency rooms was a victim of physical abuse. But the law, under which child pornography falls, contains no provision for training personnel to identify abuse or pornographic photos. As a result, false and damning allegations have risen by the thousands in the past three decades. In fact, in most states it's a misdemeanor for law enforcement officers and health providers not to report."

Damn............the system is screwed up.

At least more damning evidence than a picture of a breastfeeding mother.

in other words JBG... "Yes"

in other words JBG... "Yes"

A mother can breastfeed. It 's about survival, not sex.

A mother can breastfeed. It 's about survival, not sex.

while it's the JUDGEMENT of the person reporting it in, Child Services HAS to check each incident reported. and if you read further, the woman breastfeeding had the charges DROPPED.

So again... Don't investigate unless you have 100% concrete evidence or someone's child is hurt/raped/killed?

So again... Don't investigate unless you have 100% concrete evidence or someone's child is hurt/raped/killed?

It becomes a hassle on the law enforcement system if every single reported case is investigated on the least bit of evidence. If you go investigate the case of a child's yelling coming from a house, you have less time to find out about that kid with all the scars who went home and was never seen again.

It becomes a hassle on the law enforcement system if every single reported case is investigated on the least bit of evidence. If you go investigate the case of a child's yelling coming from a house, you have less time to find out about that kid with all the scars who went home and was never seen again.

actually, case of child screaming in the house would be referred to the cops first. (Domestic Disturbance) then the officers on scene can call for CPS if they deem it necessary.

Not just "people here". One of the basical concepts in western democracies is "innocent until proven guilty", not the other way around. Usually people are "guilty until proven innocent" in dictatorships and times of violation of human rights - like the Tribunale Speciale of the Fascist era, or Stalin's "purges", or the Terror in the French Revolution...

This isn't about one innocent family being investigated or children being raped: this is about one innocent family being held GUILTY WITHOUT TRIAL, or even the proper completion of the investigation. Your "10 children raped and killed" is a pitiful argument, and a reality-distorting one, too.

If they were presumed guilty until proven innocent, they would have been in jail getting the snot beaten out of them by the prisoners in the interim. The analogous property-type legal dispute in this case is that, supposing a man were accused of building fertilizer explosives in his back shed to blow up a federal building, would it be "presumption of guilt" to prohibit him from going to the shed while it was being investigated by the police? The answer, of course, is "Um, no."

As for the reality distortion, I can only apply anecdotally. Once while I was living at the city half-way house, the police brought in a runaway for holdover until he could return home. It didn't take any one of us long to figure out why he'd run away: roughly half his face was purpled and swollen, with his eye half swollen shut. He told us his father had done it to him. He told the police that his father did it to him. He told anyone who would listen that he didn't want to go back because he feared for his safety. But, an hour later, they sent him back home, where his father was oh so happy to take him back, and please officer, let's see if we can get this runaway business swept under the rug. Now I suppose I shouldn't be too judgmental, as after all, I can't prove the kid didn't, say, hit himself repeatedly with a tire iron. And we do have to factor in that presumption of innocence, after all. I can't help thinking, however, that it might have been better dealt with than everyone in authority saying in big bold words: We Don't Care About You.

while it's the JUDGEMENT of the person reporting it in, Child Services HAS to check each incident reported. and if you read further, the woman breastfeeding had the charges DROPPED.

So again... Don't investigate unless you have 100% concrete evidence or someone's child is hurt/raped/killed?

I suppose so, but that person who called was being a little stupid.

I suppose so, but that person who called was being a little stupid.

... agreed.

but that's not the fault of CPS.