The laws vary by state of exactly what abuse/neglect is and the wording of the laws can leave a lot of leeway for CPS to do a safety plan. I have not read Arizona's laws on child abuse so I do not know if it is the case there. Where I live, the fact that a safety plan is in effect means abuse and/or neglect has been substantiated.
I have never heard of parents of children who use illegal drugs being charged with child abuse UNLESS said parent gave them the drugs. Do you know of any?
Bingo.
I want to explain the process for those who may not know. CPS has the authority to remove children from the home, if, after investigating a referral, they find a serious risk to the health, safety and welfare of the children.
Their authority to remove the child is not the same as a court order. The analogy would be that LE has the authority to arrest but only the state has the authority to prosecute. CPS, like LE, are agents of the state and have the authority to temporarily remove a child, if the deem there exists an imminent risk to the safety of the child.
After they remove a child, a court case will be opened up in the state's juvenile dependency court. This is different from a family law case where two parents are fighting over custody, or a guardianship case which, in my state, is handled in probate court. That's when any interested party may seek guardianship over a child who needs it.
Incidentally, Kyron Horman's sister's case did NOT involve a CPS type agency. The dad sought orders from family court in connection with a divorce action, and received them.
In a juvenile dependency action, after the court case is opened up, there will typically be an initial hearing to determine if the state should have custody of the child in question. If so, the temporary removal becomes authorized via a court order, not just the emergency powers of CPS.
Then, later, there will be additional hearings to determine whether the child can go back to the parents, should be released to another family member or guardian (like a step-parent), or should be placed into the foster care system with an eye to severing the parental relationship permanently.
CPS can use its emergency authority to remove a child from a parent and place the physical custody of the child with another parent who is deemed safe. That typically occurs in divorce or similar situations where the parents are not together. In such a case, the child remains the ward of the state, or in protective custody, even though physically, they are with a different parent, and it will remain that way until the court process is finished. In such a case, the parental rights of one parent could be severed and the case closed with the child being released to the other parent. But this takes well over a year.
There is another scenario, which could be at play here. CPS could determine that there is a risk to the safety of a child due to various things. As many have mentioned, that could be the case if LE is called out due to serious domestic violence, and when they come, they determine the violence was so severe that the children's safety is compromised by being exposed to such a situation. In that case, CPS could state to the victim parent, "Listen, you need to move out or seek a DV protective order or we will yank your kids." If the victim-parent agrees to those terms, CPS will not take the children.
However, I really don't think that's what happened in this case. MSM is stating there is a no contact order. CPS does not issue court orders. They have no power to. They do have the power to temporarily take a child into protective custody, though, and then release physical possession of a child to another parent, as long as that parent keeps the child away from the dangerous parent or agrees to other conditions. If they do not agree, the child is placed elsewhere, pending court hearings. I think that is what is likely here.
And that indicates to me that LE conferred with CPS and as a result, CPS has serious concerns about the safety of the boys in one parent's care. Why? I don't know. But if it was a DV case, like battery, or threats to harm, we would already see an arrest, which is why I don't think that's the case.
