Does anyone here see the pattern of CPS treating children like a commodity and or property?
I think many of us see it and I agree, especially as regards "commodity".
The terms "property" and "commodity" are problematic though. An accusation of treating their children as such is always being levelled at parents who want their children to be with them, not to be carted off to foster homes or other CPS places, once the CPS has got its eyes on the family and wants the children. The CPS (and many many ordinary people) say "The children are not your property, you know, and they are not a commodity, they have rights of their own".
Children should certainly not be the property of the state, of the school system, of various "child expert" professions, of social workers, etc. The reason is that that is not good for children, not for their objective safety, nor for their emotions.
I should say that
in a good sense children
are the property of their parents,
just as the parents are the property of their children, because parents have feelings, instincts and impulses which are nature's best guard for the children. Children, on the other hand, have a complementary feeling of love, peace, safety when they are close to their parents, so that they tend to seek the parents when dangers threaten. Certainly there are individuals who fail utterly to love and protect their offspring, and then society is forced to step in and protect those children. But that is not the normal thing, it is an exception, while the CPS "believes" that the parents are generally just about more dangerous than anybody else. Real life is the opposite and research confirms this: children are more at risk of abuse and neglect everywhere else than with their own parents, and the children's feelings mirror this.
Compare the work of the utmost importance which the evolutionary psychologists Martin Daly and Margo Wilson have done on child abuse. It can easily be found by searching with their names, but if you find no better source, then I have made a summary of some of it here, especially in sections 7 and 8:
Child abuse which the child protection authorities do not want to know about - 2:
Violence against step-children compared to genetic children - Daly & Wilson's research
http://www.mhskanland.net/page62/page131/page131.html15 May 2012
I think a couple of paragraphs from a reference I gave above, to "Is biological kinship irrelevant …", may also be relevant:
"The above argument gives an evolutionary-genetic explanation of why it is that parents feel they must have their children with them, close to, and why children feel they must be with their own parents and seek to be near them when the world outside is uncertain, threatening, painful or difficult. Nor do I know of any other reasonable explanation of this behaviour in the research literature. If children and parents did not by instinct seek each other and stick together, the parents could not give care and protection in the practical situations where it is needed and the children could not receive it. The children would then be far more exposed to the dangers of this world. Giving priority to family solidarity as a matter of course is therefore perfectly rational behaviour and contributes, from an evolutionary perspective, to the fitness of the family line.
This does not imply that family relationships are always idyllic. Some fail, and there is plenty of dissension and discord and plenty of problems. A household is a community which needs to fulfil several functions for its members. If not carried out by close relatives, who feel a nature-based love and solidarity, piety and responsiveness towards each other, these functions must be carried out by other constellations of persons. In that case the problems and conflicts and maladjustments and hatreds that arise are more comprehensive, more frequent and more difficult to overcome, and the number of such constellations which break down is correspondingly higher. This is serious for children, who most need a community which functions. Conflicts, violence and abuse is stongly over-represented in orphanages/children's homes and foster homes wherever they have been investigated in reliable research and brought into daylight (the authorities in all countries, including Norway, have a tendency to hide such facts to the best of their ability)."Our Western social services & co simply do not understand the nature of family love. Magne Raundalen, the highly decorated psychologist who headed the committee set up by our authorities to investigate the nature of "attachment" and its possible relation to biology, said triumphantly in the important radio-and-tv program Dagsnytt 18 (news at 6 pm) - when they had concluded their work, that the committee had not found any research at all pointing to biological parents being in any special position relating to children. My own conclusion is of course that it means that Raundalen is incompetent to do research. After all, what about the world-wide evidence of what happens to children in orphanages and foster homes, while they are there and later in life? Even with adoption there are plenty of problems, actually. What about grown-up adopteds who search for their relatives? What about foster children who flee repeatedly and try to get back to their parents?
How much they pay you? 
