“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.)”
This is my third time coming across this topic today. I was waiting for additional information, but I wonder if there is any history there. Maybe the sheriff has been feuding with the family for a while and wanted to use this as an opportunity to exert dominance. Maybe they suspect the kid has truly been causing trouble and so are using this as an opportunity to track the kid and see.
Overall, seems like an overreaction, especially in small town USA.