Only donate if we've informed you about important Michigan issues
See what new members are saying about why they donated to Bridge Michigan:
- “In order for this information to be accurate and unbiased it must be underwritten by its readers, not by special interests.” - Larry S.
- “Not many other media sources report on the topics Bridge does.” - Susan B.
- “Your journalism is outstanding and rare these days.” - Mark S.
If you want to ensure the future of nonpartisan, nonprofit Michigan journalism, please become a member today. You, too, will be asked why you donated and maybe we'll feature your quote next time!
Opinion | An anonymous abuse report targeted Buttigieg, but Michigan CPS did its job
Share this:
Late last week an anonymous caller told Michigan State Police that former presidential candidate and transportation secretary, Pete Buttigieg, confessed to “unspeakable violent crimes” and that his 4-year-old twins were in danger. The allegation was referred to Child Protective Services (CPS) and, upon investigation, determined to be false.
The allegation seemed off at the outset. The caller claimed secondhand knowledge: a conversation with a woman who said she had met Mr. Buttigieg at a conference years earlier. Why would anyone confess to a stranger at a conference? Why had years passed before anything was reported? And why did the caller refuse to give a name?
The Michigan State Police warned, “False reports are dangerous and divert law enforcement officers and Child Protective Services workers from responding to legitimate emergencies and protecting vulnerable children and families.”
They are right. But should law enforcement and CPS have been able to knock on his door at all?
Malicious calls are more likely to be made anonymously. Two states, New York and Texas, now ban anonymous calls to CPS. The false report against Mr. Buttigieg had led to calls for other states to follow suit. Of course, this call originated with law enforcement: such a ban would have changed nothing for the Buttigieg family.
But banning anonymous calls to CPS is also dangerous for children. Children have anonymously reported their own abuse. Concerned relatives sometimes call anonymously because they fear the parents will shut them out of the child’s life. Criminal associates of the parents may fear self-incrimination or engagement with the police if they share their name.
And, people who report someone wealthy, powerful, or well-connected reasonably fear retaliation. An anonymous caller accurately shared raised alarms about Thomas Valva, who was later killed by his father — a New York City police officer. But that call, like most anonymous calls, was dismissed after a cursory investigation.
If we accept that law enforcement and CPS felt they needed to assess the allegations, then we must ask whether the investigation was carried out appropriately. By all accounts, it was. CPS suggested the parents engage a trusted relative as a temporary caregiver to ensure the integrity of the process and they arranged for the children to receive forensic interviews within 24 hours so that the investigation didn’t drag out. Per Mr. Buttigieg, CPS and police were polite and professional. They instructed Mr. Buttigieg and his husband not to discuss the allegations with the children and they were not present for the children’s interviews.
Mr. Buttigieg and his family were surely distressed and frightened. Who wouldn’t be? But as we consider what policies should be enacted to prevent Mr. Buttigieg’s experience, we must also ask how those policies would impact the investigation of true cases of child abuse. Interviewing children alone and ensuring they are not coached on their responses is standard — and appropriate — practice. That is exactly what we would want to happen had the allegations been true.
Indeed, far too many children are harmed or killed after cursory investigations — where CPS was too deferential to the parents and too concerned with making anyone uncomfortable — that failed to reveal the real and severe danger the child faced.
Mr. Buttigieg’s experience will resonate with people who can only imagine encountering CPS in the context of false allegations — they cannot fathom a child in their family needing protection from their parents.
But categorically banning certain types of referrals or refusing to investigate them will endanger children while doing little to protect families like Mr. Buttigieg’s. The state can and should seek to identify the anonymous caller. Making a knowingly false report of felony child abuse — whether to law enforcement or CPS — is a felony in its own right.
As disturbed as we all should be by this weaponization of legal systems for political ends, Michigan law enforcement and CPS did what they were designed to do. They moved quickly, treated the family with care, and got to the truth. This is the standard we should want for every child, including the ones whose danger is real.
Related
Bridge welcomes guest columns from a diverse range of people on issues relating to Michigan and its future. The views and assertions of these writers do not necessarily reflect those of Bridge or The Center for Michigan. Bridge does not endorse any individual guest commentary submission. If you are interested in submitting a guest commentary, email your submission or idea to guestcommentary@bridgemi.com. Click here for details and submission guidelines.