“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.)”
I read the article, and the only abuse here is the state abusing its authority.
I don’t really know much about the mother other than what’s in the story, but she obviously raised a child who feels independent enough to walk a mile to town by himself at age 11. (The title says “10”, but the article says “11”.) I would say that this is a positive thing.
On the other hand, the state is threatening to take away all of her children with this single incident. The state wants to break up this family unless she complies with all of their invasive demands. Breaking up a family seems like tyranny, especially in response to such an innocent incident.