“A few days later, DFCS presented Patterson with a “safety plan” for her to sign. It would require her to delegate a “safety person” to be a “knowing participant and guardian” and watch over the children whenever she leaves home. The plan would also require Patterson to download an app onto her son’s phone allowing for his location to be monitored. (The day when it will be illegal not to track one’s kids is rapidly approaching.)”

  • ⓝⓞ🅞🅝🅔@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    If anything, the cops should have been more on the ball in your case. I would have been grateful as a parent. Bring the kid home and let it end there. What happened in this article is describing something so very far on the other side of the pendulum. Good grief.

    As for me, I managed to stay out of sight of the police. And I will admit that there are times when the police would have had very very good reason to take me downtown. 😬 I can’t even count how many times the cops brought my older brother home. But in every case, it ended there.

    I’m guessing the cops want to make sure kids are better controlled these days that way they can more effectively shoot other innocent kids with all that extra free time they have.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      It was the 80s. They were probably just glad we were just walking through downtown with backpacks on and not taking a hit off a homeless man’s crack pipe without heeding Nancy Reagan’s warning about saying no.