The Soho Forum Debates Should Child Protective Services Intervene More?
Jan 9, 2026
Naomi Schaefer Riley, a family policy expert, argues for increased intervention by child protective services (CPS) to safeguard vulnerable children, highlighting cases of child fatalities and the shortcomings of current practices. In contrast, Martin Guggenheim, a clinical law professor, advocates against expanding CPS interventions, emphasizing systemic issues and racial biases in child welfare. The debate navigates the complexities of neglect, poverty, and the necessity of reforming existing structures rather than merely increasing removals.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Fatal Case That Sparked The Argument
- Naomi Schaefer Riley recounts Jamaik Modin, a four-year-old found emaciated and later dead after ACS closed prior reports on his family.
- She uses this case to argue that failures to investigate and intervene can be fatal for children.
Most Reports Lead To No Removal
- Riley highlights that only about 2% of maltreatment reports lead to foster-care removal, while millions of reports are screened out or inconclusive.
- She argues many at-risk children remain unprotected due to ideological pressures limiting intervention.
Racial Disparities In Risk, Not Reporting
- Riley disputes the claim that CPS is systemically racist by showing higher risk factors and maltreatment deaths among Black children.
- She contends Black children may actually be underreported and less likely to be removed once reported.