It just doesn't make sense. We saw the other thread, which you do not even link to. What is the point of this post, boston bean?

Why did you just post to me? Answer that and you will find your answer, most likely.

I said that in the title of the reply. It's just that this whole topic was the subject of two long threads, in which you participated actively. I don't see either of them on the first page today, so they've fallen away from DUers' interest.

Why resurrect the controversy? I just don't get it. New day; new topics.

I'll type out whatever I please on DU, at any time I please. Thank you for your concern though.

threads are public. Any DUer can comment in any open thread. When I'm curious, I ask questions. I was curious. I asked a question. How you answered that question is up to you entirely, as is what you choose to post as the opening thread on DU.

As I'm sure you are aware, after all this time, I post as I see fit on DU, and reply when I want to reply.

I do hope that's OK with you.

As I'm sure you are aware, after all this time, I post as I see fit on DU, and make OP's and reply when I want to.

I do hope that's OK with you.

That was a strange question to ask someone. Why would you want to discuss this further boston bean, why?

I will ask whatever I like. You're obviously under no compulsion to answer, of course.

answer you give me about why you post.

The issue is real and with obvious negative undertones shared here that is equal to Faux News opinions. So, the discussion is not closed or resolved. Thank you for sharing.

Thankfully you don't have to participate in any discussion on DU that you don't want to. Even if you do to ask a question that seems not to have a point in and of itself.

It wasn't asked of you.

Why are we punishing people who love their children and are not neglecting them? But are trying to do the best they can to meet the most basic needs?

Ask yourself that question. Let's take their children from them, call the cops? That solves it. Let's make getting help so difficult. And if they fail to navigate this very difficult and punishing system let's punish them some more! NO CHILDREN FOR YOU!

Let me guess. Social workers get kickbacks or something from rich adoptive families who want to steal kids from good, hardworking but poor families? (After all, how can they drive their used Toyota on their $30,000 a year salary -- there's got to be widespread graft going on!)

It's far cheaper to get someone bumped up on the public housing wait list, to apply for utility assistance from state agencies that might let her move to a day shift job, and to get kids qualified for childcare than it is to take a child into foster care. That's what social workers do -- help people navigate what can be, yes, a very confusing system.

is disgusting. YMMV.

Yes, they will involve police to do a welfare check -- had mopinko simply called the hotline instead of the police, police would still have been sent. That's standard procedure. In abuse cases, including sexual abuse, there are also mandated reports made to the police -- but those people *are* criminals. After that, it's handled by a different system unless the conduct was criminal abandonment.

Child protection is not about the parents. It's about the kids. And yes, the system is smart enough to realize that supportive services are going to help resolve far more cases of neglect (neglect is, by definition, not intentional abuse) than removing kids will. That's why the money is there to help those families who come to the attention of the system, rather than take their kids away.

who aren't neglecting their children, but doing the god damned best they can at the moment.

I'm not against reporting abuse. I'm not against reporting neglect. What I'm against is treating this as though the person is purposefully neglecting their children and holding the children hostage as the punishment. When in fact they are doing the right thing the best way can. And believe you me, I do have the childrens interest here. They want their mother. They don't want to go live with some stranger, because our society deems that is best for them when their parent was providing love and basic necessities.

She wasn't able to provide that, despite working as hard as she could to get everything right in the other areas.

Let's take her children from her.

95% of the cases Illinois DCFS handles do not involve removal of the child.

she didn't just talk to the mother first about her concerns that the children were being left alone all night, and that she felt it was her responsibility to intervene by calling the police or social services if the mom didn't do something to change the situation.

And why was she spending so much time "observing" the habits of this family?

She said something about trying to get section 8 approved before and it was too difficult, but she seemed to want to get it for this dwelling, for this family. Could it be what this was really all about? Trying to get her property approved for section 8 so she would never have to worry about missing rent payments again?

I couldn't help but think, from her comments, that this might have been her real agenda all along. I hope not, but her attitude and comments didn't really come across as "altruistic" to me. They came across as nosy, busybody, judging, and controlling.

but that is not the reality. They will first set you up with classes (that you pay for) and yeah I think there is some type of kickback somewhere along the line for the classes. It's something the poor are made to pay while those with money will not ever have to worry about.

And yes, the money they get allocated to them next year is based on the workload this year. The number of substantiated cases, the number of removals and the number of adoptions absolutely do play a role in the amount of money the agency gets the following year.

And yes, many of these wonderful social service people get a power hard on and fuck with people.

I have never had them called on me but have sit in when they were attempting to fuck with other people. 8 months of classes and accusation of child abuse over an accusation of spanking on the butt that later was proven false, went to non substantiated when I gave them my attorneys name that I was going to pay for the couple to use.

Plus that warrant was probably illegal, because one bitch, who has never even been in the house, calling it in is not actually a credible source and does not contstitute probable cause.

They fuck with those that can't defend themselves. And the call made to them was trailer trash revenge. They send drug task force with a warrant and tore this young couples home apart for the second time on a report filed by an ex who does it because they can. And they allow people to continue to call in false claims and wasting the resources they have for real cases.

There is not enough money in the world to make me work for cps.

if one is on the right side of an argument.

have no clue what you mean.

I didn't alert on that, but it was very predictable.

the ones being punished. I don't think a 10 year old is old enough to take care of a 5 year old all night.

Even with a mom's best intentions.

Leaving a 5 year old in the care of a 10 year old, overnight, is neglectful.

A 10 and 5 year old left unattended overnight is neglect.

Period.

End of story.

Doesn't matter what the reason is or how hard the mom is trying- it is still neglect. It is equally as much so if she left them to work or left them to party, because where she went does not change on bit the situation the children were left in, and that is the only factor that matters.

Arguing it isn't neglect because of where mom went when she left them is a red herring- where she went doesn't change the facts and circumstances of how the children were left.

You have certainty. Well congratulations. But that doesn't make you right.

In some circumstances, I would agree with you; in others, I wouldn't.

Is this something you can comprehend?

See post #12 for a good breakdown of the issues.

no matter the circumstances.

You just can't.

I am reposting because no one appeared to have an interest in the most important aspect of this (it is what you bring up in your OP) and it goes to our basic failure as a society:

While I agree it is never a good idea to leave a ten year old alone (much less leave a 5 year old in their care).... I am the single mother of three (the youngest now 18) ... I did not leave my kids alone (I didn't like them alone when the were teens ) ... but ....

I had options. I did not have to work for poverty wages (it felt like I was, but I really wasn't), I had family and friends that were securely middle class and helpful, I received child support to assist in the care of my children ....

I am curious what options this mother had (aside from the obvious "have a job that paid enough to pay for child care while she worked) ... this entire family is in an untenable situation and as far as I am concerned typifies the plight of the working poor. what options does this family realistically have ....?

There is little or no help for the working poor in the US

From the thread this is based on, it appears the mother attempted to have room-mates to be in the apartment when she worked. This is a horrible situation for the kids; however, our foster care system can be even more horrible.

It is not as if when the police are called (and the DSS gets involved) that services will suddenly become available to the family ... there is a very real risk of these children being removed from the home (at least temporarily)

Very well stated.

none of this is easy.

That is why it is hard to take some posters seriously here, they just seem to want to 'play' and not have an honest discussion about the issue.

I think that points keep getting left out. And we are to believe the word of this woman who wanted to evict her prior?

This woman doesn't get to speak for herself here, and I aint buying and don't have to buy one thing this self proclaimed loving landlard is stating at this point.

Secondly in our society why is this considered neglect with the ultimate price of having your children taken away? There is not enough help and people need to begin to recognize this and not use it for punishment.

Said poster got all defensive when we pointed out all the ways she could have handled the situation better. Frankly I am still trying to decide if I believe the story or not. Sure would like to hear from the mom, especially after catching the OP in some contradictions.

A hard working mom, struggling to get by and doing everything she can to provide for her children should not be judged by countless armchair QBs in cyberspace. The use of the term 'narc' was offensive enough and has all kinds of negative connotations attached from the get go. I asked the OP to change the wording, but evidently that is exactly what they meant and I hold them to their every word.

Also, it was highly inappropriate for a landlord to share details of the tenants' living situations with complete strangers. None of this was any of our business. She posted it here because she expected pats on the back and "You go, girl!" responses, and she had to revise the narrative several times before that happened.

I would have hated it if I found out that my landlord posted my personal details and made claims about me online.

she is also addressing her own childhood, where she experienced the other side. none of it is easy.

The ONLY thing that matters in a case like this is how the children were left- was it a safe environment, was it not?

I am hard pressed to ever consider a 10 and 5 year old left alone overnight as safe.

Poor, rich, privilege, disadvantaged, trying hard or not trying at all- none of the parents circumstance changes that.

It's either safe to leave the kids, or it's not. If not, that's endangering the child.

Period.

Saying "well you are poor so I will let you treat your kids worse" is not the answer.

... this entire family is in an untenable situation and as far as I am concerned typifies the plight of the working poor. What options does this family realistically have ....?

It's a matter of what constitutes neglect vs. less desirable choices. Are the kids fed? Are they going to school? Do they have an adequate place to sleep?

You may be hard pressed to ever consider it but it's reality for many, many kids in this country, never mind around the world. No one's saying "you're poor, so you can neglect your kids." What many are saying is "you're poor and I understand that you have no better choice."

no one here has answers. They certainly have no answers for the problems of the woman discussed in the original thread who no one but the (now deleted) OP knows and hence can only speculate about.

Although that doesn't stop them from yakking on about it interminably.

As a society, we do talk a lot about family, but we don't actually do much to help with family problems. An ideal family situation is proposed, and then you are on your own. If anything goes wrong, help is probably not on the way. Even if it is, someone is ready to complain about it.

I hope we can discuss the larger societal problems ... minimum wage increases, access to AFFORDABLE child-care, cuts to SNAP benefits. We treat the poor shamefully .... and then we sit back and judge them for horrific choices they have made (when all of their options are horrific).

internet discussion board.

and a law enforcement matter says a lot about who we are as a country.

A woman killing herself to have basic necessities should not have to go through investigations with the fear of her children being ripped away from her. Neither should any man.

so why even speculate about the mother...we never got to hear from her. I guess the landlord is not good enough to let her defend herself on this site, but sure can post judgmental things about her all day long.

Has gone viral...whats posted here goes everywhere in minutes.

Yeah, bad idea to make a creepy OP and then start contradicting yourself. You can delete the OP, but it is cached somewhere on the WWW for pretty much forever and a day.

that badly into the family (or trusted or whatever) and the mom is freaked out by it. Is the way I see it.

needs to control the neighborhood. I bet they laugh at her though.

Last edited Sun Jun 15, 2014, 02:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Whether it occurs because someone is too poor to afford the necessities for the children or because they're so morally repugnant if they do have the funds to neglect children anyway. The result to the children is still the same. Though I certainly feel for the poor person (and I AM one) that can't afford the necessities for their children it's still neglect. Someone that really cares more for their children than for themselves in bad circumstances would be more interested in doing with their children what is best for THEM in order that they receive such necessities as food and shelter even if that does mean placing them elsewhere for a period of time.

The bigger problem is that our society doesn't have good options for people to place their children or even their pets at times when they should be due to the neglect because their parent/s can't properly take care of them and provide the necessities for them. Foster care and children's shelters in our country are often the worst of places where the children are even more neglected or even subject to other abuse. This, of course, creates an even bigger problem for the parent/s in deciding what is best for the child... the neglect because of not being able to afford the necessities for them but still have the children with them or the neglect and possible abuse in a foster situation or child shelter without the parent that could very likely occur.

If our society had only good foster families and children's shelters than of course a parent that couldn't provide the necessities for their children should place them there until such time that they got back on their feet and could properly care for their children themselves. No one here would argue that. But, like I said, we don't have that better option, so in neglect situations due to lack of funds it becomes a matter of having to toss the dice and decide for one or the other and hope for the best even though either situation still is likely to cause neglect.

Because someone is poor and can't afford the necessities for their children does not mean that the children are not being neglected - they are in going without necessities. It's just that the neglect is not the fault of the parent. And because good parents that are poor and have to neglect their children through no fault of their own should have a good option for those children to receive the care they need whether it's providing funds so that their needs can be met while still remaining with the parent or the children being placed elsewhere temporarily until the parent can provide for those needs.

Of course, the better option is for the children to remain with the parent, so providing adequate funds to poor parents is by far the better option than placing the children somewhere else. Foster parents and children's shelters should only be for those children that have no good parent or relative to care for them either because those people don't exist or because they are bad parents/guardians (drug addict, alcohol problem, abuse, etc.).

No decent society should be taking away children from their parent or relative (when there is no parent) because those people are too poor to properly care for the children, and ADEQUATE funds should be provided so the CAN remain with loving adult caregivers. It seems to me this is not only the better option for the children but a cheaper option than foster care or a shelter.

Sadly, we live in a society that not only doesn't care for its poor but even treats the poor with disdain as if their circumstances make them bad people.

But they do not receive the knowledge or education that there are resources out there to help them in their situation. Neglect is clearly defined by the laws in our country when it comes to children so are you making a moral/ethical statement in opposition to the legal definition of neglect?

"The system" sounds scary, but people are acting like she turned this woman and her children into the child-snatching Gestapo, not to the one agency that can actually give this woman the social worker she needs. Especially in cases of suspected inadequate supervision or insufficient utilities when the parent(s) *are* trying. There are funds specifically for these situations in their state.

Because no, a landlord can't be a social worker.

People have accused her of offering too much help, or too little help, but no one has denied that they need the help... yet they attack her for doing the one thing she could to ensure they got that help.

If the social workers are doing their job the effort will be to find here adequate child care, not to take the kids.

some mothers (and fathers too) are so attached to their children that they'd rather be unemployed and homeless than have their kids taken away. Crazy, huh?

... confronted with that in this country. Work full time (or two jobs) and earn so little that you can't afford child care and that may be exactly what you are confronted with.

These were children who had keys to their own house to let themselves in so they would be home all alone for a few hours before their parent(s) got home from work.

That anchor absolutely pissed me off with he being so overpaid and out of touch with the people she was supposed to be reporting to.

This is what a cushy six figure income does to people. It makes you believe EVERYBODY can afford a sitter,...or a gardener, or a maid. Go to seven figures and you start thinking everyone can afford a butler and a chauffeur.

The media dropped the whole "latchkey kids" scold when they realized it was too common.

and state that persons do not matter when profit is involved.

may not always seem wise. A former tenant in the house across the street from me, here in St. Paul had five year old and 9 year old daughters. She worked until 4 PM every day. From the time the school bus let her children off at the bus stop until she got home from work, they were alone. The 9 year old had a key to the house, and walked her sister from the bus stop, one block away, to the house and they went inside and waited for mom to come home.

My neighbor came and talked to us before school started that year and explained the situation. She gave us a key to her house in case her older daughter lost or forgot hers. Both my wife and I work at home and are always around in the afternoon. At least one of us always watched the two children come from the bus stop to the house. We can see both from our front window.

Their mother also told them to come to our house if there was ever a problem or if something seemed amiss. Mostly, they came over when, as expected, the older daughter forgot her key or lost it. Then, we'd open the door and let the kids into their house. We also kept an eye on the house, just in case anything happened there that wasn't right.

No problem, really. The kids knew where to go for adult help, and mom was home within an hour of the time they got off the bus. Everything went fine, until one afternoon.

That afternoon, the older girl came over with her little sister and knocked on the door. She told me that her aunt was at the house and that the aunt thought someone was in the house, down in the basement. I asked where her aunt was and was told that she was in the house. I went over there and knocked on the door and the aunt, who was all of 12 years old, came to the door. I had told the two girls to have a seat on the front porch, and told this young aunt to come over and do the same. I asked about this person in the house, and the aunt said "I heard someone moving around in the basement."

So, I called 911, explained the situation, and a patrol car and a K9 unit showed up in about five minutes. I told the children to stay put on the porch and went over to talk to the police. They asked me a few questions and then decided to do a walk-through with the K9 unit, just to be sure nobody was in there, as we all suspected. I told them that there was a pet German Shepherd dog in the house and said that if they opened the door a bit, I'd get him by the collar and take him across to my house and leash him up.

We did that. They walked through the entire house and found nobody there, as expected. The K9 unit left and the other police officer came over to my porch, where the three kids were and asked them a few questions, one of which was the age of the aunt. Since she was 12, she was old enough, legally, to supervise the two younger children. But, this was the first time she'd ever been there that I knew of. I said nothing, because of the arrangement we had with the mother.

The cop left and mom showed up a few minutes later. I related the situation to her and she told me that the 12 year old "aunt" was very prone to making up stories about people being inside her own house. Now I knew. And that was that.

The situation wasn't the best situation, but my wife and I were adequate supervision for these two well-behaved youngsters who didn't hesitate to come to our door if there was any issue. A 9 year old simply isn't mature enough to watch a 5 year old, but since we lived across the street, it was pretty much OK. Mom trusted us. The kids trusted us, and we were always close at hand.

In another situation, it wouldn't have been OK at all. Situational issues often trump rules.

clothing...and Love.

Here we have repug politicians who say over and over they want the private sector to volunteer to
take over services the government assures will protect children.

So there are volunteer food banks and volunteer clothing exchanges for children
and some groups make a shelter available for struggling families...BUT where is the day and night
care for these children when their parents want to work their way out of poverty?

The churches and other organizations should have this as a priority, instead they
seem to want to punish struggling parents who need to work by taking away their children.

Tikki

Oh? The answer is suddenly obvious?

That's because the mother's intent... and how hard she's trying... don't add thing one to the discussion of whether or not she has neglected the children. All that matter is whether or not they actually were neglected.

Society's obligation to care for those kids is a relevant conversation, but surely doesn't trump the parents' obligation.

The only relevant consideration for the original thread is the one that had the overwhelming majority vote when I saw the thread... is the older sibling able to care for the younger sibling overnight or not? Some ten year olds can... some cannot.

As an aside... absent unusual circumstances... it's unlikely that a nosy neighbor is in a position to judge - though they always think that they are.

.... the topic of this thread isn't about vilifying the poor it is about discussing what options are available to the poor and what options SHOULD be available. No one thinks any parent should ever have to face the untenable choices that these threads highlight.

What options are actually available in your community? what options would you lobby for?

Clearly, a single parent working a ten dollar an hour job would have to spend the entirety of their paycheck paying for child care (remember there is a premium rate for infants) .... how does a single parent do this? It is neglectful not providing food and adequate shelter (after child care has been paid for there is essentially zero left for that).

a person working full time should at least be able to afford the most basic of needs ... in our country the working poor cannot.

This thread is about our society and the plight of the working poor and their families.

One can come up with hypothetical situations all one wants too .... but what protections do you think should be in place to protect the working poor and not vilify them for horrific choices they are confronted with?

Last edited Sun Jun 15, 2014, 04:19 PM - Edit history (1)

... but they do not have greater obligations than the parents.

And you have to remember... that sometimes the way society fulfills that obligation is to take children from parents who can't care for them.

One can come up with hypothetical situations all one wants too

Except that this was a real situation, wasn't it? All I'm pointing out is society not doing enough for mom doesn't mean that it wasn't neglect (it would just mean that it was neglect by both mom and society)... and mom trying her hardest doesn't mean that it isn't neglect.

All that determines whether or not she neglected her children was... whether or not she actually did. To (as to most in the original poll), that answer is found in the character and capacity of the older sibling.

... ensures exactly squat will BE done when a person's best isn't good enough, and leaves kids to suffer until a tragedy strikes and those children are taken away from this planet.

States have put aside money for when people are reported to social services for circumstances that are beyond their control. Illinois has a very good program for that purpose. They will make sure the family is able to get child care. They will get them bumped up lists for public housing and Section 8. They will help both get the utilities turned on and keep the ones on, on.

No wonder so few want to go into social work. They either think it involves heartlessly stealing children from the working poor, or don't want to be thought of in that fashion.

Find a post where I have even implied that.

You seem to display some hostility to the idea that we have a societal duty to prevent families from being in these situations.

Perhaps the social service programs have not been decimated in the past 20 years, as they have in the remainder of the country ... but there are a lot of (ignorant?) folk that feel that funding and services are not there as you state (below).

"States have put aside money for when people are reported to social services for circumstances that are beyond their control. Illinois has a very good program for that purpose. They will make sure the family is able to get child care. They will get them bumped up lists for public housing and Section 8. They will help both get the utilities turned on and keep the ones on, on. "

Mercifully, competent social workers understand that they cannot provide the services folk desperately need. http://www.progressillinois.com/quick-hits/content/2014/02/24/chicago-area-residents-urge-state-lawmakers-address-social-services-cr

The health and human services system in Illinois is in "crisis," according to Chicago-area residents who pressed state lawmakers at a public forum Friday night to address problems facing social safety net programs.

Illinois -- ranked 47th in the nation for community funding -- a “stingy state” when it comes to important services for those with disabilities, Paulauski said social services groups everywhere will hurt the most from the 6 percent cut in the Medicaid rate by which agencies are reimbursed. This is in combination with the notorious backlog of debt the state owes to social services numbering in the billions, with back-payment averaging six months or more. Waiting on half a year’s worth of reimbursements can equate to some 50 percent of a group's budget, Paulauski said. The developmental disabilities system alone is owed $500 million. “Many families who have children with disabilities, only one spouse is working because the other is doing the daycare,” Paulauski said. “They were asking ‘what will we do?’”

Which is what the OP is stating outright. That we should just leave not well enough alone, and pray nothing happens to the kids. Prayer alone works about as well to protect a child as it does to prevent one.

As for Illinois DCFS, the differential response pathway is new, it's partially outsourced so it doesn't impact regular DHS staffing, and I didn't see those particular workers demanding anything services-related, they're demanding benefits (which they should also get). Also don't see anything related to child welfare in the second article, only other DHS agencies.

Here, on the other hand, is information about the Differential Response pathway:

http://igpa.uillinois.edu/content/differential-response

The OP and I question a society where there are NO options for the working poor .... they are generally left with ONLY bad choices.

Are you actually contending that Illinois or other state welfare agencies receive adequate funding to meet the needs of people??? If you are I am incredulous.

If you are and LCSW working for CPS do you really assert that you have adequate means to help this family without the mother losing her children (at least temporarily) or her job (I hate using the family from the "other OP" because the details are so contradictory and murky).

In your community is it really possible to provide quick and adequate assistance to someone not in the system? What would your action be ... provide child care assistance immediately so that this mother could keep her job and the family could remain intact? You must be working in wonderful conditions, as no social workers that I know feel that they are able to provide services that are adequate or provide services in a timely manner despite (sometimes) Herculean efforts. This is what people are railing against ... a deck so stacked against a single working poor parent.

I am hoping you do not work in this field, as your lack of compassion to a parent facing an untenable situation regardless of what her choice is would be disturbing. I understand social workers have to make torturous decisions ... I have just never heard the total lack of compassion and understanding from them .... they seem to be almost universally, of the mind set that tthey wished they could do more and do it faster.

And if they refuse the help this time, as this particular woman has refused help to get the gas turned on, she *will* have a full-on neglect investigation done.

And no, not all of this woman's neglect has been from being a poor working mother. Being poor and working doesn't make it impossible to put your five-year-old child in the car instead of leaving them at home alone when you take your oldest to school. Being poor and working also doesn't make it impossible to accept help that's been shoved in your face so you can bathe your children easier. What's a few minutes to buckle a kid in a carseat, a few hours of your sleep *sometime* before months have elapsed to meet with an alderman, when compared to the well-being of your child?

Of course more needs to be done to make subsidized childcare available to the working poor, before things get to the point child welfare must be involved. But that's no reason NOT to call when the situation has gotten that severe -- you're denying them what little help there is, and that help is only available if someone makes the call! And yes, there *are* services that are available without DCFS involvement. But she's apparently unable to navigate that system herself. Yet another place where a social worker can help, doing the paperwork and such.

You act like I don't have compassion. I do. It goes first to the children, though. As it should.

about my profession. Which is really awful I know, but... Either I steal children, or don't intervene soon enough and leave kids to die. Either way, as a social worker I am equated with the antichrist for daring or not daring to intervene in other people's families. Never mind the fact that I don't even work for or with CPS.

I am not understanding in these threads why anyone thinks it's OK to leave a 10 year old and a 5 year old home, overnight, without adult supervision. I don't give a flying fuck if you're poor or rich, working or partying til dawn -- it is UNSAFE and therefore NEGLECT to leave children of that age home alone for that length of time. Period. Doesn't mean the kids should be whisked off to fostercare. Does mean intervention of some type is needed. Because you know damn well that if something awful happened to those kids while they were home, overnight, without supervision, the cry would go up -- "Why didn't anyone do anything? Where was social services? Why did no one think of the children?"

Years ago I worked in a community home based hospice (RN) ... we worked on teams of RNs, home health aides, and social workers even in that setting folk believed social workers came to "take their children" .... it was really hard getting people to understand what social workers could actually do for them (when they availed themselves, they were almost universally thrilled, but....).

No one here is attacking you or your profession. Do you really believe that you are provided adequate staffing and funding to provide the services that people in your community need? I had lunch with two nurses and two social workers yesterday .... we ended up talking about the services that are available now vs then (20 years ago) .... they seemed to think they are so hamstrung because of horrific cuts (in staffing) and in program funding. (noting neither works directly for DSS)

that people in your community need?"

Hell no. Not even kind of. I think we can pretty well all agree that our society's willingness to support our most vulnerable members (and the people who work to do exactly that) is pathetic and inadequate, if not criminally negligent.

As for attacking my profession: All those folks who keep saying that it's far better to leave kids this age home without supervision for 8+ hours at a stretch rather than to call CPS in to try and help find solutions? Feels pretty damn attacking of my profession. Makes us sound like monsters who can't tell the difference between impoverished people trying their best and needing some help, vs. parents who could do better but just don't give a shit.

I can see how an MSW would come away thinking "not this sh*t again" .... remember as info came out in dribs and drabs in that post ... it appears the kids spent ~ an hour alone after the room-mate left for work (still not OK/ I wouldn't do it).

I am attacking our societal values ... NOT your profession (in my value system you would have enough staff and enough resources to reasonably help folk ... especially children)

In the situation discussed if you removed the children (even temporarily) you would be categorized as a monster ... if you let the children remain and something terrible happened you would be held accountable and crucified for your decision. There is no winning for you .... but, in the same vein there is no winning for many working poor parents

I hate hypotheticals ....but I am going to engage in one anyway .... would you have had the time and resources to intervene quickly (and adequately) enough for a single working poor parent to find affordable (and reliable) child care and keep their job? I know here in Michigan they really don't have the resources (state wheels turn very slowly) ... they sure would try, but in the interim the parent would likely have lost her job (opening this family to even more problems)

...but do remember that I am not actually a CPS-type Social Worker. This is NOT my area of expertise, and I haven't worked case management in about 15 years

However, back when I did work case management, my primary job was in homelessness prevention -- and this inevitably included practical things like child care and job finding etc. I did not work for the state or the county, but rather for a local nonprofit that was one of the places County Social Services referred folks to for additional help or if they didn't qualify for government assistance. CPS called on us all the time to supplement what they could do.

So -- if this working mom had called us/walked in/been referred and asked for help, what could we have done?

We were set up to handle both long-term and emergency situations, with access to certain grant monies and a variety of specialist case managers. We also had a zillion contacts with all sorts of other agencies, foundations, programs, and so on.

Emergency/short term, I would've been working with her to identify people who could be with the kids overnight when she had to be at work. Friends, family, neighbors -- resources she may already have within her holding community but not effectively accessing. This could be either a stop-gap solution or a more permanent one -- you never know when you start what you're going to find.

Then we'd have tried to locate funding for paying someone to be with the kids overnight if needed. Funding was slightly easier to come by back in those days, and I don't know what's available now.

If the mom was interested, we'd be able to help her with Section 8 housing applications, federal state and county assistance application, food stamps/WIC, healthcare for her & the kids. We routinely worked with tenants and landlords to facilitate Section 8 conversions. If mom wanted to find different work that let her be home overnight -- maybe daytime childcare for the 5 year old was easier to find -- we would've tried to help her with that as well.

Please don't misunderstand me -- our society doesn't prioritize helping those who most need it, and as a result funding and services and staffing are damn hard to come by. We cannot work miracles no matter how well intentioned, when we don't have the institutional tools needed for the job. The way we treat our neediest citizens should be a matter of deep and abiding national shame.

That said, horrible circumstances still don't make it OK to leave young kids to their own devices. You're right -- for the aged kids in question (assuming neither is developmentally delayed in any way) an hour after school, if someone is aware of it and available quickly if a need arises, really isn't neglect as the law defines it or even as I would morally define it. Leaving those same kids alone all night long, with no emergency phone and no on-site person responsible for their well-being, is unacceptable.

"Leaving those same kids alone all night long, with no emergency phone and no on-site person responsible for their well-being, is unacceptable. " I agree completely (as I think most people do.) Most of the "concern" is related to the horrible choices working poor families headed by single parents have to face, as I am sure you would acknowledge the situation for them is horrible.

You echo the sentiments of my friends (also working in different areas now) ... (I left health and human services 20 years ago to raise my kids and then obtained a completely different degree). Your possible interventions appear very similar to what they had experienced ( with them their experience goes back 20 or more years ago)

The closest SW friend I have (closest to working for CPS) is a friend working for a public school system ... according to her services have become so difficult to obtain. She dreams of retirement because she doesn't feel that she can provide (or direct families to) enough help and it has taken a horrible toll on her. My brother's wife grew so disillusioned she never returned to your field after my niece and nephew were born

I hate to use the family from "that thread" because as the story unraveled it appeared the children were alone for an approximately an hour after the room mate left for work. (I am not OK with that, but it is a far cry from being left alone all night)

"The way we treat our neediest citizens should be a matter of deep and abiding national shame." I agree completely and that has been the thrust of most of my posts. as a society we should be ashamed good people feel forced into making truly poor decisions (choosing what they believe to be the lesser of two evils).

Your compassion speaks volumes about the work you do ... I have the feeling your clients have been very lucky to have you

If they're left home alone because you're working, however, you shouldn't be criminally charged, you should be helped. What's needed is either a babysitter or another job -- which society ought to be willing to provide.


rocktivity

Cite a couple of state laws ... in Michigan (as in most states) there is no designated age

Only three states currently have laws regarding a minimum age for leaving a child home alone. Illinois law requires children to be 14 years old before being left alone. (In Maryland, the minimum age is 8; in Oregon, it's 10.)

The New York State Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children provides the following guidance:

stating "You're supposed to call the cops when children under the age of 12 are left home alone". Clearly, that is not the case at all.

it varies from state to state .... and in most states it is situational. I didn't like the idea of my children coming home from school to an empty house (I had options to where this was not necessary) ... Our neighborhood has a fairly large amount of latch key kids ... probably starting around age ten ... our state law accommodates this reality

"The Illinois Criminal Code also makes “child abandonment” a Class 4 felony, punishable by 1 to 3 years in prison. It’s child abandonment, the law says, to knowingly leave a child:

age 10-13 alone for 24 hours or more
age 7-10 alone for 8 hours or more
age 0-7 alone for 2 hours or more
under age 18 with physical or mental special needs alone for 2 hours or more"

http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.dsp_content&contentID=5701

... is alone.

State laws vary widely ... most rely on common sense

Now, I can't find those exact timeframes anywhere in the code itself. It might be those have been established by case law.

What these laws suggest is that it is very situational.

In most states time frames, as well as age are not codified.

I was lucky .... circumstances allowed someone to be home with my children (almost) every minute of the day. I also was able to be a stay at home mom until the youngest of my children was ten

... but looking at the criminal code itself, I can't find the specific statute that gives those exact timeframes, just the anyone under 14 without appropriate supervision for 24 hours, and defining "supervision" as someone 14 or older present.

Also, those timeframes leave questions -- is it 2 hours or 8 hours for a seven year old? Is it 8 or 24 hours for a 10 year old?

And if it's not illegal anymore, it SHOULD be because it's still unwise.


rocktivity

I was a night owl from age 8. I could also take care of myself and little sister (two years younger) from age 8. However, I was age 9 before I was able to talk my mother into letting me stay at home during the summer with my sister while she went to work rather than dropping us off at daycare which is a really dumb and boring place to leave a super mature and intelligent 9 year old. God lord. I was smarter and more reliable than the idiot teen aged girls who worked there. And she still insisted upon getting us baby sitters when she went out in the evenings until I was 12 (old enough to be a baby sitter) even though we lived in the suburbs (back when suburbs meant "safe&quot in an apartment and knew all our neighbors. I thought it was very odd and a waste of money.

What is it about after dark? As far as I can tell, "bad people" don't just come out at night. And since kids are going to be in their houses after dark, they should be even safer alone after dark if they keep the door locked and don't open it for anyone.

I think it is a remnant of pagan superstition.

At eight years old I was changing my baby sisters diapers, the cloth ones. We were home alone, and as with you, it was on the occasion of having a 'baby sitter' that chaos ensued, like the time she didn't know how to light the gas oven and nearly blew the kitchen up because she wouldn't follow my instructions to turn the gas off and let things air out following her hesitance to light it.

Getting older doesn't make one an adult, as we both know.

My mother slept when she had a 3rd shift job. I entertained myself and didn't get into too much trouble. I had my dogs, for crying out loud. No one was going to try to hurt me, day or night. My dogs wouldn't let anyone near me unless they knew the person. Even then, they watched like a hawk. I have had friends' dogs be that protective over me too.

I don't know why people think nighttime is so much different. I was once warned by a friend of the family not to go walking on the beach at night, because men "do things with each other" out there at night. Hell, they "do things to each other" in the daytime too. Seen it, no big deal. If they are doing "things with each other," what reason do I have to fear them? It is none of my concern. That is how I finally put it to that person with their homophobic nonsense to shut them up at me. I enjoyed my walks on the beach. Granted, I was a teenager by then, but had enjoyed my nighttime walks in woods and at the beach before that person came along with their "warnings."

It all depends on the maturity level and street smarts of the kid, more so than the age of the kid. If a kid is street smart and mature, they can handle things better. It is better to teach kids than to overprotect them to the point that they cannot function.

It could be the lack of other people after dark. Except in a few areas(ie nightlife areas and dense city), most of the world seems to become abandoned after dark. Or the idea that people feel more free to be Bad in the dark. I dont know if its true, but it would seem to make sense, psychologically, that dark, when people cant naturally see, would feel like a more natural time to do things that you dont want to be seen doing

Or, as you say, it could be superstition. I dunno.

and I find your reply troubling equating a single mother from Nigeria as a "scammer". Ugh.

"Nigerian Scammer" .... is this what you associate with immigrants from Nigeria?

I must admit, I work with an immigrant from Nigeria (a very cool scientist) ... NOT once did I ever think of "Nigerian Scammers" in association with him ... I am pretty disgusted that someone would attribute that to millions of hard working folk that have as much to do with scams as I do.

Americans can be scanners, too. Have you met the GOP?

because newly immigrated Chinese mothers would swaddle their toddlers so they couldn't move and leave them alone while Mom was out working. The living conditions were appalling, worse than they'd been used to in China, but the focus was on the kiddies. Until they were old enough to start Head Start, this is how they were kept safe during working hours.

There was a big stink and a lot of "aint it awful" going on, but I don't think the mothers got any day care services out of it and it's probably still going on.

some people on DU are so quick to judge others without ever walking in the same shoes....