#53. Parents’ Fear of CPS is a Major Deterrent to Kids’ Freedom

State child protective procedures can lead to the harassment of parents for doing the right thing.

Nick Youngson CC

Here (slightly reworded) is a comment made by a reader of Letter #52 in response to concern about the decline in children’s freedom to play and explore independently in public spaces.

“We live in a neighborhood that is safe for kids. But every time we let our kids roam freely, an adult that neither we nor our kids know intervenes and tries to put a stop to it. Even if you try to give kids basic freedom, even if you live in a place where it should be possible, the culture disallows it. As a parent of young kids, it's very disheartening.  … I'm more afraid of random neighbors calling CPS than I am of actual kidnappers or car crashes.”

I have read and heard many comments like this. Many parents out there get it. They understand the value of independent, unsupervised activity for kids; they know their kids are responsible enough to handle such independence; and they know their neighborhood well enough to deem it safe. But they don’t let their kids out because they’re afraid that someone seeing an unguarded kid will call the police or Child Protective Services (CPS).

Of all the fears parents describe for not allowing their kids out by themselves or with friends—fears of traffic, of abduction by a stranger, of bullying, and so on—this is the one for which I have the most sympathy. It is, sadly, a realistic fear. In most states, if a call from any random person goes to the police or CPS suggesting a child might be endangered because of lack of supervision, the police and/or CPS are required by law to follow up with a home visit. Regardless of whether it results in a formal charge of parental neglect, the visit itself can be traumatic for both the kids and parents. In this day of cell phones and public service messages stating, “If you see something say something,” it is altogether too easy for adults, who know nothing about the child or the situation, to call a hotline and report what they believe to be an endangered child. They believe they are being good citizens to do so.

Examples of Investigations by Police and CPS

Here are a few real-case examples of what can happen, for which I thank Lenore Skenazy, president of the Let Grow nonprofit and author of Free-Range Kids, who has collected them and helped to publicize them:

• Dallas mom Kari Anne Roy’s 6-year-old was playing outside for about 10 minutes when a woman saw him and marched him home, 150 feet away. Shortly afterward, Roy’s doorbell rang again. It was the police. They interrogated her and asked for I.D. A week later, Child Protective Services came to the house and interviewed each of Roy’s three children separately, without their parents, asking the 12-year-old if he had ever done drugs, and the 8-year-old girl if she had seen movies with people’s private parts – something she’d never even heard of.

• For three days over summer vacation, North Augusta’s Debra Harrell let her 9-year-old play at the popular local sprinkler playground while she worked her shift at McDonald’s nearby. A woman at the park asked the girl where her mom was, and upon learning she was at work, called 911. The police threw the mom in jail overnight. She lost custody of her daughter for 17 days. Despite public outcry after reporters got hold of the story, it took over two years before the charges were dropped.

• Chicago mom Natasha Felix was cited for neglect after she let three children, aged 5, 9, and 11, play in the park next to her home, where she could see them from her window. She checked on them every 10 minutes, but a passerby thought the kids were unsupervised and called the Department of Children and Family Services Hotline. It took two years, but a state appellate court finally overturned the finding of neglect against Natasha.

Here, more briefly, are some more examples, in headline form, from Lenore’s list, each from a different state:

-Police repeatedly question mom of 6 who let her kids pick up litter outside.

-Suburban mom handcuffed, jailed for making 8-year-old son walk half a mile home.

-CPS bars mom from allowing her 3 kids – ages 6, 8 and 9 – play outside by themselves.

-Cops harass parents who let 6-year-old daughter take a walk outside, arrest dad.

-Siblings, 8- and 10-years-old, escorted home by firefighters after neighbors report unsupervised kids.

-Parents arrested for letting kids, ages 7 and 9, walk to Dunkin’ Donuts.

-Parents investigated for letting 7-year-old get a cookie from the store.

How Such Surveillance Came About

How did this absurd, almost Orwellian situation come to pass? Like so many of the other ways we are leashing and thereby harming kids, it comes from good intentions gone too far. For reasons I’ve presented previously, many U.S. adults have come to believe that children below about age 12 are always in danger if not continuously guarded by an adult nearby. If you are a good citizen and believe this, then you want to protect not just your own children but also other people’s children. So, you call the police or CPS to report the situation. Meanwhile, state authorities, partly out of concern for the child and partly for their own protection in case they are sued if harm does come to the child, have created laws requiring a home visit whenever such a call comes in. The reasoning is “better safe than sorry,” which may be good reasoning in some situations but severely damaging in others.

The initial legal trigger for this draconian system of family surveillance was passage by the U.S. Congress, in 1974, of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA). The act required states to set up systems of mandatory reporting by doctors and certain other professionals whenever they detect possible child abuse. The aim at the time was to identify serious cases of physical and sexual abuse of children and provide effective remedies and treatment. Although the act was passed in 1974, the state programs really began to ramp up in the 1980s, coinciding with the increasing public frenzy about “stranger danger” that began at that time. As they developed, the programs became increasingly concerned with neglect, not just abuse.

As explained by family defense attorney and counselor Diane Redleaf in an article concerned with this whole problem, abuse refers to something awful that is done to the child, while neglect refers to the absence of some expected behavior toward the child. The largest category of neglect charges is supervisory neglect, the failure to supervise a child. These are the cases so often brought by calls to the police or child protection hotlines. Redleaf points out that the number of neglect cases child protective services deal with each year is far greater than the number of abuse cases, which are generally far more serious. Redleaf notes that nearly 8 million children (more than 10 percent of all children in the U.S.!) have been reported to hotlines each year in recent years, and the data reveal that 38 percent of all children will have a protective service investigation at some point during their childhood. The great majority of these cases are for neglect, not abuse.

Essentially what this all means is that parents’ judgement about what is good for their child is superseded initially by the judgment of anyone with a phone who can call a hotline, and then by the judgment of a child protection employee who is far more often concerned with any small chance that a child might be endangered than with evidence that children need independent activity for healthy development.

Let Grow Is Helping State Legislators Pass “Reasonable Childhood Independence Laws”

One of the ways Let Grow has been working to bring more play and adventure into children’s lives has been to lobby with state legislatures to define neglect in ways that do not punish reasonable parents who believe that independent activities are good for their kids. Diane Redleaf is the attorney working with Let Grow to push these changes. So far Let Grow has helped legislatures in eight states pass what are commonly called “Reasonable Childhood Independence” laws, in each case with bi-partisan support.

The states are Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Montana, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Basically, what these laws proclaim is that it is up to parents, not the state, to determine what is safe for any given child unless the child is put in obvious danger, as judged by any reasonable standard. If you live in one of those states, a passerby might still call 911 or a hotline if they see your 7-year-old happily playing hopscotch with a friend on a sidewalk in front of your house or down the block, but after hearing the description there is no requirement for authorities to follow up and, if they do, you are safe from prosecution. On the other hand, a parent who left a three-year-old for hours unattended in a park would not be so protected.

If you live in a state that has not passed such a parent-protection law and would like to work toward one, contact Let Grow. 

Further Thoughts

Whether or not you live in a “Reasonable Childhood Independence” state, one thing you can do to reduce the chance of a neglect charge is to arm your child with a note saying that they have your permission to do what they are doing and are well prepared for it. Add your cell number and suggest that, if anyone is concerned, they can call you. That may well prevent a call to 911. If, despite that, an authority shows up at your house, do not act angrily or defensively. Demonstrate calm rationality. Explain how your child was well prepared for the adventure that elicited the hotline call and why as a parent you decided that such an adventure would be not only safe but growth promoting. Your goal is to help the authority understand your decision so they can move on to more serious cases.

If you do live in a “Reasonable Childhood Independence” state, make yourself aware of the law in your state. You can find out more about that here. Be prepared to remind any authorities who might show up at your house of that law and show it to them.

This Substack series is, in part, a forum for thoughtful discussion. I greatly value readers’ contributions, even when they disagree with me, and sometimes especially when they do. You will notice in reading comments on previous letters that everyone here is polite. Your questions and thoughts will contribute to the value of this letter for me and other readers. If you have had experiences with child protection cases of the sort I have described here, your descriptions of them here would be especially valued.

If you aren’t already subscribed to Play Makes Us Human, please subscribe now, and let others who might be interested know about it. By subscribing, you will receive an email notification of each new letter. If you are currently a free subscriber, consider converting to a paid subscription. I use all funds that come to me from paid subscriptions to help support nonprofit organizations aimed at bringing more play and freedom to children’s lives.

With respect and best wishes,

Peter