Should Child Protective Services Intervene More?
Naomi Schaefer Riley and Martin Guggenheim debate the proper role of child protective services.
Naomi Schaefer Riley and Martin Guggenheim debate the resolution, "Government-run child protective services should intervene more in the lives of children."
For the affirmative is Riley, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and at the Independent Women's Forum. She's the author of seven books, the most recent of which is No Way To Treat a Child: How the Foster Care System, Family Courts, and Racial Activists Are Wrecking Young Lives.
Guggenheim is taking the negative. He is the Fiorello LaGuardia Professor of Clinical Law Emeritus at New York University Law School and co-director of the Family Defense Clinic. He's also the author of multiple books, including What's Wrong With Children's Rights.
The debate is moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.
- Post Production: John Osterhoudt
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
"Should Child Protective Services Intervene More?"
Better question:
Should Child Protective Services Exist?
^THIS. The mere fact an entire agency has to exist JUST-FOR pretty much answers that question.
In short....no.
In longer terms...noooooooooooo.
I suspect the correct answer is actually "it's complicated". The easy intervention cases are likely ones that should not be pursued, but are because they are easy. The ones that should be pursued more vigorously are complicated, and so get shuffled to the bottom of the pile.
No, it should be abolished, like most other government meddling programs.
Should Child Protective Services Intervene More?
Does this include unborn children?
Figments of wild imagination? I hope not.