Someone posted here with dire warnings about CPS. I share some of that poster's frustrations with the system. On the whole in this country, I have found it to be even worse than our Mental Health System (no small feat that!). However, I have to say that, in my experience working with the child welfare system for the past four years (mostly as a Court Appointed Special Advocate [CASA]), the two factors that make the biggest difference in determining how well a case goes for the child involved are the relative wealth of the county that is providing services and the stability and degree of involvement of the child's extended family.

The LW can make an anonymous call, but I suggest that if CPS really gets involved in this (which is no guarantee based just on her allegations, especially if they are as vague as represented in the letter itself) she should make her presence known to them and be active in pursuing the best possible outcome for the children. Since she lives so far away and can't monitor the situation very closely herself, she might advocate for the children to be assigned a CASA (or their county's equivalent). CASAs are independent volunteers who usually visit the children at least once a week and report directly to the court about their living conditions. They can go a long way towards preventing some of the horror stories the previous poster referred to (though we are hardly foolproof, and have far more impact as observers than as advocates). She may also be a possible placement for the children, but in reality three years of sobriety is not that much when it comes to such a lifestyle change.

It's always a bit of a gamble putting a kid in the system. However, if the child is lucky enough to live in a county that has some competent social service organizations (again, depends very much on the county), the gamble is a small one compared to the known risk of doing nothing at all. And in this case, there's no reason to jump to the conclusion that the parents wouldn't just get help in the form of some parenting classes, some assistance getting their finances in order, and possibly some legally-mandated recovery program attendance. Emotional abuse (at least in the legal sense of what is actionable for CPS) is extremely difficult to substantiate, and neglect due to poverty (even what we might be tempted to label the self-inflicted variety) is not usually a reason to remove a child from the home, as far as I know.

Again, even under seemingly ideal circumstances it is true that these cases can end up spiraling out of control and winding up really doing more harm than good. However, nine times out of ten if CPS has the legal ability to take any action at all it is usually because that action is sorely needed and the risk of getting a bad placement is smaller than the risk to the children in their current bad place.

I agree that there are abuses in the application of Title IX, and that these problems should be addressed. However, it's telling to me that many of us are more familiar with the abuses than the benefits of this law(and very honest of people here to admit that). The application of good laws can at times go awry. When it does, people who are opposed to the law because they are threatened by legal assistance for oppressed people will publicize the hell out of it to try to make the argument that the whole law - or better yet, the whole notion of enacting laws to create a more equitable society - should be discarded, either based on the argument that it was bad to begin with or based on the argument that it has done all the good it could possibly do and is no longer needed.

I'm glad to see that we can both identify problems in the application of the law and remind ourselves of the more widespread, institutionalized abuses that inspired the creation of the law to begin with and that continue to necessitate legal support for equal treatment of women in these areas.

Also, isn't Title IX about more than athletics? How come we only talk about that aspect of the law when it comes up?