This seems quite difficult to sell insurance for, because as the insurer you would need to distinguish between reasonable parenting that might be misinterpreted by CPS and unreasonable parenting where intervention is justified. I expect this to be the kind of thing that is very difficult for the adjuster to come to a clear decision on. They could offload this decision making to the existing system, but a big part of the problem is that people don't trust the police/CPS to do the right thing reliably.
Then there's quite a bit of adverse selection where risk for most families is going to be super low but the risk for people who most want to buy the insurance is much higher, and it's going to be hard for the insurance company to figure out how risky any individual buyer is.
But there are also just a lot of things that parents are legitimately concerned about that you can't buy insurance for: whether they're kids find a profession that's a good for for them, college admissions, whether you'll have a good relationship with them as a teenager or adult, etc.
I agree. To me it is improvement as a parent to behave reasonably about these worries.
Maybe straight insurance is the wrong model for the reasons you say. Though I'm not sure adverse selection is really worse than any other type of insurance. Realistically I think the payout could be limited in a way that makes it work. The most effective thing this scheme would do would be sending strongly worded letters on legal letterhead.
But given catastrophic consequences are so rare, it seems that some thing could help distribute the very small risk,
Another model might be like how the 90s ACLU worked. They take donations and take principled legal cases, but aren't obligated to defend everyone.
If litigation/CPS is an actual concern, why can't you buy insurance for it?
This seems quite difficult to sell insurance for, because as the insurer you would need to distinguish between reasonable parenting that might be misinterpreted by CPS and unreasonable parenting where intervention is justified. I expect this to be the kind of thing that is very difficult for the adjuster to come to a clear decision on. They could offload this decision making to the existing system, but a big part of the problem is that people don't trust the police/CPS to do the right thing reliably.
Then there's quite a bit of adverse selection where risk for most families is going to be super low but the risk for people who most want to buy the insurance is much higher, and it's going to be hard for the insurance company to figure out how risky any individual buyer is.
But there are also just a lot of things that parents are legitimately concerned about that you can't buy insurance for: whether they're kids find a profession that's a good for for them, college admissions, whether you'll have a good relationship with them as a teenager or adult, etc.
I agree. To me it is improvement as a parent to behave reasonably about these worries.
Maybe straight insurance is the wrong model for the reasons you say. Though I'm not sure adverse selection is really worse than any other type of insurance. Realistically I think the payout could be limited in a way that makes it work. The most effective thing this scheme would do would be sending strongly worded letters on legal letterhead.
But given catastrophic consequences are so rare, it seems that some thing could help distribute the very small risk,
Another model might be like how the 90s ACLU worked. They take donations and take principled legal cases, but aren't obligated to defend everyone.