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.
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.
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!