Should We Take More Kids From Their Homes or Fewer?
When children are abused, we want government to step in. But Child Protective Services sometimes goes too far.
Some parents abuse their kids.
Child welfare workers are supposed to stop that to protect the kids.
But bad things often happen while they watch.
"Children have a right to safety," says Tim Keller. "If home is a danger, we as a society have to step in and protect those children."
Keller, legal director of the Center for the Rights of Abused Children, is a libertarian.
"It's surprising to hear a libertarian argue that government should do more," I tell him.
"We don't like the state involved in family life," he replies in my new video, but "they're leaving children in dangerous situations."
Lots of parents abuse kids, even when they are on Child Protective Services' (CPS) radar.
Maybe it happens because child welfare workers are told, "Whenever possible, keep families together."
That's U.S. policy, and Keller says it wrecks lives.
But Columbia Law School professor Josh Gupta-Kagan wants welfare workers to take fewer kids from their homes.
"The horror stories go in all directions," he says.
In Massachusetts, after parents brought their young son to the hospital with a fever and X-rays revealed an old, healing rib fracture, child welfare workers took both him and his brother away from their home. They returned the boys after four weeks, but those were a traumatic four weeks.
It happens because American law requires social workers, doctors, nurses, teachers, and other professionals to report anything suspicious. Those who don't report may be fined or even jailed.
Gupta-Kagan says this leads health care workers to report too many instances of possible abuse.
"See something, say something. It's surveillance, investigatory, and sometimes it leads to an unnecessary separation." Those can be as traumatic as abuse.
"About 37 percent of all children are going to be the subject of a CPS hotline call. Fifty-three percent of all African American children.…Where my clients live…the CPS agency is a constant presence.…Folks are scared of them."
"We certainly don't want a situation where we're going to say, 'We're not going to protect this child because he is African American,'" replies Keller. "But 2,000 children a year are dying in their homes, and most of those are known to Child Protective Services."
Gupta-Kagan disagrees: "I don't think I've seen any evidence that removing more children from parents saves lives. Child fatality numbers, unfortunately, have remained stubborn."
In 2023, more than 100,000 kids were taken from their homes. Still, about 2,000 die from abuse or neglect.
Child welfare workers are overwhelmed.
"Millions of CPS hotline calls coming in," says Gupta-Kagan. "If you want to find the needle in the haystack, we have to stop putting so much hay on the stack."
Texas recently changed the definition of "neglect" to say that kids must be in "immediate" danger of harm before a child can be taken.
As a result, Texas now has far fewer children removed from their homes.
Keller calls that a mistake. "By the time a child is in imminent harm, they've already suffered so much trauma."
Keller, who has been a foster parent himself, wants more kids taken from their biological parents and put in foster homes sooner.
"That child only gets one childhood. We need to make sure that that child is in a safe, loving, permanent home as quickly as we can."
That's a noble goal. It's horrible when kids are abused.
But some foster parents are abusive.
This is one conflict where I have no idea who is right.
Government is best when it governs least.
But when children are abused, we want government to step in.
What do you think?
COPYRIGHT 2025 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
In the case of Sarcles the diminutive, perhaps the drunken deadbeat father should have been removed.
Keeping the Big Nosy Know-Nothing-about-it higher ranks of Government out of it would be a big step in the right direction.
Funny how judged by your 'peers' ended up being judged by people who know nothing about the case.
When children are abused, we want government to step in.
No, we do not.
Too many busy-bodies seem to think 'Government' is just some 'suggestion' to their self-importance detail. Too many need to come to terms with the fact that the only thing makes the identify 'Government' distinguishable from other faucets is its use of legal 'Gun' threats to imprison or kill offenders.
As such its only humanitarian purpose is in a defensive manner against unwarranted aggression. So in summary; If the violation doesn't warrant shooting someone in the head then it probably doesn't warrant 'Government'.
i.e. It should be a last-resort defensive measure.
Not a 1st resort filling self-importance desires for power-mad busy-bodies.
We don't? Child abuse should be legal? That's quite a take.
70% of the prison population are registered Democrats.
83% of Blacks vote for Democrats.
Democrats whole party-platform is about Gov - 'Gun' STEALING from those 'icky' productive peoples creations/earnings for their own selfish endless UN-Earned consumption.
But you can't prosecuting the THEFT mentality or it'll be 'racist'. /s
Maybe. Just maybe. Excusing every crime against one's fellow man (no matter the color of their skin) as being 'racist' is exactly the means by which such race-lopsided prison-population, shown above, got that way. Maybe if you stop excusing crime; crime starts to go away.
I don’t know if there have been many studies on the long term outcomes for kids raised in foster care, but something tells me they are way more likely to end up in prison than becoming productive, well-adjusted adults.
Our foster care system is atrocious. We need to go back to orphanages.
Not all foster parents, of course, but many are in it for the checks they receive from the state.
TL;DR, but as to the headline, why are we keeping count? Is there a right number, like a quota or balance or something? This is not a quantitative issue!
Stop acting on anonymous complaints to children's services. Start prosecuting callers who make false complaints. Pass laws such as those that Lenore advocates that protect children's freedom of movement. That will greatly reduce the kidnappings.
Pause for a moment. You see a mother losing it on a child in a parking lot. The child is bruised.
I call this in because I am concerned for the child. It turns out the child was being scolded but the bruising happened from the kid skateboarding and wiping out.
Why should I be charged for making a false complaint?
Because you made a false complaint.
But when children are abused, we want government to step in.
When there is evidence that a crime has been committed against a child, we want law enforcement to investigate. We do not want non-LEO kidnapping a child because they are playing outside, because they were allowed to walk to the corner store to get a candy bar, because an 11-year-old was left home alone while the parents went out to dinner, or because some busybody is offended by a family's lifestyle.
A kid playing outside is not an indication of abuse? I don't think anyone disagrees with what you outlined if action is take in these regards.
Triggering a review or investigation based on actual observed evidence of abuse should not be considered a problem. Why do you think it is?
"But 2,000 children a year are dying in their homes, and most of those are known to Child Protective Services."
^This^ has nothing to do with your cited complaint.
You're not making sense.
"By the time a child is in imminent harm, they've already suffered so much trauma."
Stop subsidizing the reproduction of indigent unmarried women.
Recently an 8 year old was killed by her abusive father and step mother. Broken hands and burned from boiling water poured on in a hotel room.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/father-stepmother-accused-burning-girl-163513037.html
Child Protective Services had an active case against Ray Mata because a boy whose name was redacted had been missing school — and when at school had visible bruising on his arms, according to the documents.
Officers examined the boy and found a slew of injuries, among them bruising on his chest and legs, scarring on the back of his neck, shoulders and back — and scarring that appeared to be from cigarettes and a lighter put against his skin, according to the documents.
"Indigent unmarried women" are the problem you say?
That's correct.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/genesis-mata-s-biological-mother-speaks-out-on-past-previously-faced-child-abuse-charges/ar-AA1KpByP
I think Gupta-Kagan has it right. Less is more. I recently sat in the jury on a child abuse case and the state presented no convincing evidence at all. The child was separated from her father for over a year because of some playground trash talk and subjected to a forensic interview. CPS needs to take a step back.
"...American law requires social workers, doctors, nurses, teachers, and other professionals to report anything suspicious. Those who don't report may be fined or even jailed."
That is the outcome of mandatory reporting laws. The approach in hospitals [the environment where I spent most of my professional life] is to report everything and just let the agency sort it out; that way you've done your diligence and cannot be blamed and you and the facility are off the hook. To ensure that abuse gets reported, the reporters are granted immunity for anything that turns out to be unsubstantiated, but stand to be prosecuted if they fail to report.
Thus in the case of any possibility of abuse or neglect, the question is "did you report it?"
Good intentions, road to hell.
It gets worse. My sister and her husband had their kid seized because of mandatory reporting. In this case, little Bobby had suffered a minor injury. John didn't think it was serious enough to merit an emergency-room visit, but Mary thought it'd be wiser to get it checked out. Unfortunately, she told hospital personnel so, and they reported the incident on the grounds that John might be trying to cover up abuse. And they had every incentive to do so: as QUT points out, they'd be liable for failure to report if there was actual abuse, whereas they faced no liability for a false positive, however weak the evidence.
That was quite bad enough. But CPS's behavior made things much, much worse. After hauling the kid off to foster care, they gave John and Mary a choice: Sign this paper admitting that you were bad parents, and attend several weeks of bad-parent school, and you can have Bobby back right away. Or dispute the charge, and you'll have to await the outcome of a hearing that might be months away, and that might lead to the permanent confiscation of the kid.
Being parents, and desperately wanting their offspring back, they signed on the dotted line. And that meant that they'd lost all ability to make trouble for CPS: if they complained to their legislators or to the press, the CPSniks could show their signed confession, and, if they were sufficiently irked, use it as grounds to remove the kid once again, perhaps permanently. This, I'm sure, is exactly why they insisted on that signature; and I suspect that's why we don't hear more stories from parents who've been unjustly persecuted because of one of those false-positive reports from a mandatory reporter.
What was the minor injury suffered and the answer provided for the injury?
Are you saying CPS immediately took the child before any investigation took place?
Who "charged" the parents and with what evidence?
CPS has become another government mess of largess self important DEI hires.
I have a friend whose child has sleep apnea. the machines they use have a senser that lets the STATE know if your child is using it or not. Well one night the child being typical didn't use it and they sent CPS to investigate all the kids privately. Lucky all the kids are happy and nothing came of it but to think for just not using state monitored equipment they will come after you, scary.
Sleep apnea machines connected to the "state"? What reason would have created the need for the "state" to be connected to the machine?
It is not normal for children to be issued sleep apnea machines automatically monitored by the "state".
One thing we can all agree on is that America’s child protection system is broken. But the debate is not simply between “bad parents” and “bad government” or whether CPS removes too many children or too few. The heartbreaking truth is that both tragedies happen every day. Innocent families are torn apart by false accusations, while at the same time thousands of children CPS already knows are at risk are left to die at the hands of their abusers.
Tens of thousands of American children have been killed by their parents or caregivers, often after CPS had prior knowledge of the abuse. Simultaneously, families with no substantiated history of harm face unnecessary removals, creating lifelong trauma for both parents and children. These outcomes are not contradictory—they are the predictable result of a system operating without oversight or accountability.
As a lifelong libertarian, I believe deeply in the rights of the individual. Accordingly, I support the Center for the Rights of Abused Children, which does remarkable work defending the rights of both parents and children against agencies that operate with virtually no oversight. A government powerful enough to destroy families should at least be accountable when it fails to protect the very lives it claims to safeguard.
Look no further than the case of 10-year-old Rebekah Baptiste. Despite repeated warnings from her school, Arizona authorities failed to intervene. Rebekah died this summer after enduring starvation, dehydration, ripped-out toenails, and injuries so severe prosecutors now call it “torture.” She is one of thousands of children lost to a system that had every opportunity to act but didn’t.
The problem runs deep. In DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court declared that government agencies have no constitutional duty to protect children from private harm. Since then, CPS has operated with extraordinary power to seize children or ignore abuse—with almost no responsibility when it fails. No remedies. No consequences. No accountability.
This cannot stand. Reform must start with transparency and independent oversight. Agencies must be measured, audited, and penalized when they fail. We must reject the false choice between child safety and parental rights. America needs a child protection system that respects both—because without accountability, the cycle of needless removals and preventable deaths will never end. The Center for the Rights of Abused Children is leading the way to break this cycle through much needed reform.
SOME gun owners act irresponsibly, does that mean all must loose their 2nd amendment right?
SOME politicians are crooks does that mean we must abolish government entirely?
Just because "SOME" is true that doesn't mean we act foolishly in response. The overwhelming majority of these cases can be dealt with via some simple common sense however Liberal/Democrat governance disallows the use of common sense in favor of berecrautic red tape and regulation.
For every case you make that leaving the child runs a risk one could argue that removing them and placing them in foster care places and equal and maybe even worse risk. We should ALWAYS default to the parent and allow the state to intervene only in extreme circumstances let we set the precedent for more and more government authoritarianism.