Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's an absolutely outrageous story from one of Radley Balko's readers, who emailed this to him:
Last night, my sister's boyfriend was pulled over. They searched him and found a small amount of marijuana on him. Going through his wallet, they then found a picture of my sister and her kids. The officer called the department of human services on my sister... who was NOT with him at the time, nor were her kids.They came to talk to her today and they are forcing her to take a drug test.
If that doesn't make you angry, someone needs to check your pulse. Holy shit.
Comments
From now on I'm keeping a dime bag and a picture of Jenna Bush on me at all times.
Posted by: Abby Normal | May 12, 2008 9:25 AM
What state is this in? Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen to me...
Posted by: David Durant | May 12, 2008 9:34 AM
great story - but is it true?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 12, 2008 10:15 AM
My wife and I have been foster and adoptive parents, so we've been exposed to the child-protective scene in our nect of the woods, and I assure you that this is not unusual. It's the whole "think of the children" thing. This guy has pot on him, and he's in some way connected to this woman with kids, and that somehow provides an imperative to save those kids from this guy's influence. The standard procedure around here would be to require Mom to take a drug test, and agree never to allow any contact between the kids and this guy. Refusal to do either of these would be seen as grounds to remove the kids "for their own protection."
Posted by: Tim Limbert | May 12, 2008 11:03 AM
Gingerbaker -
While it is not unreasonable to question this story, this sort of thing happens all too often.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 12, 2008 3:47 PM
This can't possibly be true. It has to bullshit. No police department is named, no city...Can't be true.
Posted by: soboco | May 12, 2008 11:29 PM
This can't possibly be true. It has to bullshit. No police department is named, no city...Can't be true.
And what Free Country® have you been living in these last 25+ years?
Posted by: Ray C. | May 13, 2008 10:42 AM
Ray C. said:
"And what Free Country® have you been living in these last 25+ years?"
LOL... On the other hand, what Internet have we been using these last ten years or so? :D
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 13, 2008 10:53 AM
soboco -
What, a story can't possibly be true because details have not been included?
The unfortunate truth of the matter is, this sort of thing happens and happens all too often. A guy I used to work with had his child taken by CPS for four days. His crime? Advanced potty training - he and his (then) three year old were out playing in the yard when he had to pee. So he told his son he needed to pee and went behind a bush. His son followed him, as he was at the age where boys are still fascinated by such things - like my oldest, that's how he learned to use the toilet.
A cop had just finished responding to a call from the neighbors and noticed what he was doing, even though she couldn't actually see the pertinent bits. The next thing you know, she is charging him with urinating in public view and exposing himself to a minor. CPS was there two hours later to take his son. It also took him almost two years to get his name off the sex offenders registry.
Another friend had her custodial rights disrupted by CPS, when her ex claimed she was feeding the kids marijuana cookies. Because the ex was only allowed supervised visitation, the kids were in foster care for a couple days while they were being drug tested and momma was being investigated, including drug testing.
So while it's quite possible that the story is bullshit, I see no reason to assume it's not. And were it my family being affected, I would not be keen on releasing details either. Having a bunch of keyboard warriors rallying to the defense (which many would) and writing people in pertinent agencies would not be helpful and could possible make things worse.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 13, 2008 12:03 PM
Jumping in here as a former Child Protective Social Worker in Los Angeles County to say that that kind of thing happens all the time. It's wrong -- except when its right.
I did investigate when the police referred for marijuana. Those cases were, by and large, wastes of time. Most people who smoke pot with any degree of regularity aren't a threat to their children. But we'd also get similar calls where someone was picked up with meth on them, and we'd go out and find kids living in filth. And I can't tell you how many alcohol related calls led to investigations where yes, kids were getting neglected and abused.
I say all of that and note at the same time the number of investigations for the above that didn't lead anywhere, where the children were fine, or close enough to fine as you can hope for in a city where there are so many more problems that can also hurt kids once drugs are off the table, and we closed the investigation and walked away.
But the philosophy of CPS is that previously mentioned "Think of the Children." It's the "Well, if investigations lead to only one true positive out of 100 false for abuse then it's worth it" idea. And while some people think even that isn't right, the inverse, where for every 100 positive investigations for abuse and neglect we'd have one false negative, many of those same people raise hell and demand the heads of social workers.
CPS is a horribly inefficient system. The laws can be quite vague. Abuse can happen within its walls too. But I haven't found anyone yet who can offer a better safety net for kids than one involving someone checking on them -- often over their parents objections -- to see if they are okay.
Posted by: Jody | May 13, 2008 3:58 PM