Want to make money fast off a site? Just go on over to 
Let's take a glance at some of the stuff posted on there:
Let's take this article for starters: https://steemit.com/familyprotection/@mepatriot/calling-cps-is-child-abuse-let-s-work-to-pass-a-law-seriously
Let's take the first paragraph:
The number of perturbed and vindictive exes who sic so-called "child protective" "services" (CPS) on the one they once >claimed to love has become a problem of epidemic proportions, and this author has written an excellent article about >why no one should EVER do that to another breathing human being.
You notice the name of the author is missing? So do I. That's because as we will see the article will go to mislead you to believe that most of whats said here is by experts like an attorney instead of a internet blogger whose only contribution to be being an novelist is a book called River Girl - A Happy Camp Novel by Linda Jo Martin , quote, "It is about two children who moved to the Klamath River Valley from Antioch, a town in the San Francisco Bay Area, back in the 1920s. The Klamath River Valley town of Happy Camp is remote and isolated, surrounded by many miles of forest. This novel is about people isolated in the forest long ago, before there were cars, and before Highway 96 was created and paved." As you continue reading along you get the impression that an expert on custody laws has authored this article instead of an internet blogger, that is inherent in the fact of the first paragraphs where mepatriots claims:
Here is the first excerpt to which I'd like to draw your attention:
"Calling CPS is no way to handle a child custody battle. For the sake of the children, resolve to get along and make two >happy homes for the kids. Frequently, I get comments on my site from parents or grandparents who called CPS >thinking that they would get custody. However, they constantly tell me how terribly things turned out and how much >they regret their decision to make that call. Mainly it is the children who will suffer forever because their parents >couldn't get along.
Matt Pinsker, an attorney, says, 'I have seen numerous demonstrably false CPS reports, police reports, rape claims, and >other claims made all to gain leverage in custody situations. It is disgusting and an abuse of the system.' ...CPS agents, >sometimes called social workers, though they may not possess a social work degree, can wreak havoc on your life, >cause trauma for you and your child, and turn a bad situation into something much worse."
Not only is this not the first excerpt to the article but only the first two sentences of the second paragraph are actually a quote Matt Pinsker made, the rest case be attributed to Linda Jo Martin, a internet blogger, utube book reviewer also known as the book lady, whom also lost custody of her kids after failing to protect herself and them from an abusive husband she was married to for seven years. But what the hell, as we will see further down in this article mepatriot makes claims that women who fail to subject themselves as battering rams to their husbands is just plain selfish. Right now I am just pointing out how misleading it is as to who this article was contributed to as most know most people won't brother to click on the link to check for accuracy, this part becomes all the more apparent as the next thing mepatriot does is plaster a big picture of Matt Pinsker followed by advising you that this man knows his stuff and then proceeds into a tirade of stuff that can't even be contributed to him as ever saying.
First of all...if you live in Virginia or the mid-Atlantic states, make a note of this attorney if you run into problems with >CPS. This guy obviously knows what he's talking about and definitely has his priorities lined up and his head screwed >on straight. Marriage is not about YOU and what you think you "want" or "need" out of it. It's about much bigger and >nobler things, like putting others before yourself, keeping your vows, and putting your children first...Oh, and the >future and sustainability of human civilization.
Siccing CPS on your mate is worse than taking a knife and sticking it in their back, and depending on the location of the >blade when you do it, potentially more damaging, physically, as well as emotionally, spiritually...and any other way >you can think of. And, it is definitely worse for the kids...unless it turns out you truly did marry a mass murderer, or >something. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, siccing CPS on your mate in attempt to get custody backfires, and ends >up helping no one, except maybe an adoptive couple you've never heard of, and you will probably never get to even >say goodbye to your kids before they gain possession and REPLACE YOU as your child's parents.
**
The author does talk about the rare cases where your ex-mate may truly be a danger to your kids--which almost every >ex thinks (or concocts) to be the case. We are not talking about that right here, because 95% of the time, your ex would >never harm your kids in any intentional way anymore than you would, and the pain caused by your ex is simply causing >your rational judgment to be overcome by emotions...especially the revenge emotion.
Remember...YOU ARE NOT THE ONE THAT MATTERS HERE...your kids are. If more parents could grow up an act like the >adults they are supposed to be, they wouldn't be exes in the first place, and they certainly wouldn't be allowing >themselves to be driven to a place where they allow their own children to suffer as a result of their own jealousies and >childishness. The advice above is excellent. Of course, reconciling is best, if there is ever still hope of that...i.e. if your >mate hasn't already remarried-- or gotten "with child" as a result of infidelity. Rolling back the divorce rates and >learning to put your mate above yourself are SO crucial, not in just for what is best for kids, but for putting CPS out of >business. Trust me. If marriages were working as they are supposed to be, we wouldn't have CPS intervening in >families in anywhere near the kind of numbers they are now. We've let the genie out of the bottle by being (and living) >as though we, ourselves, were the only thing that mattered. Selfishness is destroying western civilization, and it is >being pushed BY THE CULTURE at every turn...in movies, T.V., top-selling novels, etc.
**The above advice was a list of advice on how to co-parent given from a list done by a university. The rant before and after are not noted in the article as coming from someone other than mepatriot. There you have it you civilization destroying divorcees... mepatriot claims you are the cause of the ills of society. Better women learn to roll with the punches so their daughters don't contribute to the ills by seeking divorce after being bitch slapped or learn their husbands are running around with his dick hung out or their wives with their legs spread apart, short of child or being murdered all should remain well you sniffling self centered and selfish cowards.
The second article dealt with a mother who had been given ample chances to improve her mothering skills but ultimately in the end lost custody after her four year old twins were found wondering around a parking lot alone in a heavily gang and drug infested neighborhood.
Mepatriot tries to miserably make this out to be something based on "free range rights" of parents while admitting she/he isn't quite sure how well that should work out in a heavily gang and drug infested area, she/he completely fails at any endeavor of sympathy towards the safety of the minor children when at the end she/he advocates for the mother to take her children and run.
As for this specific case, this mother probably should get out of range of Texas DCFS, ASAP…and she may want to “keep >her nose clean” from now on. Once your children (like her three) are already in the clutches of these dangerous profit->driven bureauRATS is probably not the best time for personal re-assessment of one’s parenting choices.
This mother couldn't keep her nose clean anymore than she could keep her kids safe. Here is my reply to that article.
Well, well, well I do say that is quite a pattern alright. Just not on the part of CPS or the police but on your cunning ability to take any article containing the words CPS and frame it into some logical conclusion even when there isn't any that CPS is in the wrong. Now lets see just what is missing here...
That’s quite a pattern. Even so, none of the above, except the second, is >particularly egregious and could be explained >as over-active >imagination of a jealous neighbor. What is missing, of course, (And that is another major problem with >CPS accepting anonymous calls, and with >parents and caregivers not being allowed to know the identity of the >accused) is the circumstances of the call. If it was the same caller in >more than one incident, those cases could pretty >much be dismissed as >“busy bodyism” on the part of the reporter.
The first incident the now fifteen year old would have been seven, maybe eight years old. Even if a busy body parent called the police it wasn't up to the busy body neighbor to take care of this woman's children while she trotted off to jail to see her boyfriend. Maybe none of them even knew where she went for all that matters or what time she'd arrive back home. Maybe no neighbor at all was paying attention and the girls went to seek advice or use their phone to call their mother whom being in the vicinity of the jail someplace wouldn't have had her phone on her to answer so they could verify where the mother was and when she'd get back home. There's no indication she lost custody of the children over this so we can safely assume she was sat down and talked to about developing a plan to keep the children safe.
The second incidence the fifteen year old should have never been cooking to start with. She would have been anywhere from nine to eleven years old. It's even questionable as to whether she should have even been babysitting. Most states have legal age requirements for babysitting. Our state it is twelve and maturity plays a factor. I remember saying I couldn't wait till my oldest was twelve so he could babysit and I didn't have to pay a sitter and someone quipped kids could babysit at the age of eleven. I didn't know that since my babysitting years they had relaxed the rule a bit but I also didn't take it upon this person's comment to be accurate either. I actually called CPS and I asked them what the guidelines were for kids to babysit. I was told twelve, sometimes they allowed eleven depending upon the maturity of the child involved. Regardless of age though children that young were not old enough to prepared hot meals and consideration had to be taken into how to handle that they could not cook nor allowed to use sharp instruments to cut up food. This mother failed miserably to find out the rules and laws and one child suffered the consequences. Yet again we see that the children were not taken and again she was sat down and advised on the safest course of action for her children. I am also taking it that a busy body neighbor didn't see the incident happen therefore couldn't have just reported it because they were a busy body.
The third incident more than likely came to light via the school reporting not a busy body neighbor. The girl more than likely told a teacher why she was absent for two days. Having to babysit is not a viable excuse to be missing school. How would a busy body neighbor know the child was home for two days because they had to babysit over being home for being ill. I admit I am running on an assumption here but my money is on there was more than just one incident of absenteeism and this one just happened to put the frosting on the cake. Again the children were not removed therefore the mother must have received some much needed guidance.
The last incident involved what they quoted as a bystander...not a neighbor, not a busy body neighbor but a bystander, which also happens to be a far cry from the latest incidence where they stated it was:
The caller stated that he and a coworker found two children walking in >the parking lot of the business, “an area >known for drug and gang >activity,” according to the affidavit.
See?....again, not a neighbor nor a busy body neighbor, not even stated as a single lone bystander but a caller and his co worker.
Again, though, I see no reason for CPS to be involved in police matters, >as these types of potentially dangerous >situations most adamantly >would be—NOT the purview of people charged with examining cases of >actual abuse—>something they are notoriously poor at doing.
Obviously you fail to see the illogical failure of that quote. "As these potentially dangerous situations most adamantly would be". Just pick the tiny tot up and hand him back to the parents no questions asked, what could possibly go wrong. You know what they say, three strikes and your out, I think CPS and the system gave this woman adequate chances to develop a plan that can keep these children safer, and to determine how the mothering can be improved....and she failed miserably at taking the advice.
The ink was barely dry on this article when I came across a perfect example of just how very easy it is to use the family protection site to make quick, easy money:
See how painstakingly-less easy that is to do....and the Coconut will even reward you with a re-steem. What are you waiting for, why settle for pennies when you can have easy dollars.