Laura and I were talking this morning about a number of things but part of the discussion focused on what Delia Rochon said in response to her observations of the visit from CPS. Delia, as a seasoned, professional counselor listened in on the interrogation (my word) of Laura and said that she was shocked at the method and line of questioning and really had no idea what direction the questions were tending towards. I realized that the reason that the questioning was so disconcerting to both Laura an Delia was that they were not allowed to know anything about the accusations being investigated. This violates the sixth amendment rights of the person being interrogated (that they have the right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation {and} to be confronted with the witnesses against him”). The questioning also runs directly contrary to the fifth amendment rights of the person being investigated (to not be a witness against themselves) and all of this is done with not even a semblance of legal oversight as, with the most dire consequences at stake (namely the breakup of the family and the removal of the children), there is no effort on the part of CPS to inform the accused of their rights.
I would fully expect them to make the argument that they are not law enforcement and that none of this amounts to a criminal proceeding (as specified in both of the above cited amendments) but how can it be construed as anything else when they claim to be able to use the force of government to deprive the parents of their most prized right – the right to raise their own children.
Obviously there are situations where the parents are not acting in good faith for the best interests of the children. This fact exposes why the approach of CPS is designed to fail. The adversarial and secretive approach has the effect of flustering the good parents who have no idea what it is they are supposed to be guilty of. The mental confusion makes it all the more likely that they will make incriminating statements (seeing as most parents have done things that can be construed as not good for their children). At the same time, this secretive, adversarial approach gives almost no advantage when dealing with the parents who are not raising their children with a focus on the well-being of the children. Those parents know what they have done that is not in the interests of the children so they are under no confusion about what things they should be concealing if they want to retain custody of their children. CPS may be able to uncover the things they are trying to conceal and remove the children from their custody despite their best efforts but it is not because their tactics are working.
If CPS were interested in the well-being of the children and understood the value of not disrupting the feeling of security that children enjoy when the family is not being threatened with government intervention they would realize that a an open and honest discussion with the accused parents (a “good cop” approach) would be less disruptive and more helpful to the good parents while at the same time being more disarming with the bad parents. This would mean that people could be less afraid of CPS – both in reporting incidents and in opening up to CPS during investigations.
Currently good people have every reason to avoid reporting undesirable situations to CPS if they believe the parents to be simply under-prepared rather than ill-intended. At the same time, good parents have every reason to be suspicious of CPS because when CPS comes to them CPS representatives act in an adversarial way. If CPS were to act in a more compassionate and assisting way then good parents would be more cooperative and good people who are aware of questionable situations would feel more comfortable involving CPS even when they believe the parents are well-intended but overwhelmed. This would have the effect of allowing CPS to intervene earlier both with good but overwhelmed parents, and with parents who should have their children removed (temporarily or permanently). It would also allow CPS to blow the chaff of unnecessary reports away more swiftly so that they could concentrate their time on the wheat of situations where their intervention and behavioral agreements are appropriate.
Leave a Reply