CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
AND THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
A guide to protect the constitutional rights of both parents and children
as ruled by the Federal Circuit Courts and Supreme Court.
“Know your rights before you talk to anyone from CPS/DCF or let them in
your house, they won’t tell you your rights.
CPS/DCF can’t do anything without your consent, demand a warrant and
speak with an attorney first before speaking with anyone from CPS/DCF, it could
cost you your children.”
The United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit said it best, “The government’s interest in the welfare of
children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse, but also
protecting children’s interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in
the lawfully exercised authority of their parents.”
v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999).
Permanent termination of parental rights has been
described as “the family law equivalent of the death penalty in a criminal
case.” Therefore, parents “must be
afforded every procedural and substantive protection the law allows.” Smith (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 1, 16, 601 N.E.2d 45, 54.
“There is no system ever devised by mankind that is
guaranteed to rip husband and wife or father, mother and child apart so bitterly
than our present Family Court System.”
Judge Brian Lindsay
Retired Supreme Court Judge
New York,New York
“There is something bad happening to our children in
family courts today that is causing them more harm than drugs, more harm than
crime and even more harm than child molestation.”
Judge Watson L. White
Superior Court Judge
Thomas M. Dutkiewicz, President
WE AT CONNECTICUT DCF WATCH
ARE NOT ATTORNEYS AND ARE UNABLE TO OFFER ANY LEGAL ADVICE. ANY
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.
IF YOU CHOOSE TO USE ANY OF THIS INFORMATION, YOU DO SO BY YOUR OWN CHOICE,
CONVICTION AND RISK. WE ONLY OFFER UP AN OPINION FROM OUR POINT OF
VIEW. WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DECISIONS YOU CHOOSE TO MAKE OR FAIL
TO MAKE. BEFORE MAKING ANY DECISIONS, SEEK LEGAL ADVICE FROM AN ATTORNEY
IN THE AREA OF LAW YOU WISH TO PURSUE.
IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR CPS TO CONDUCT
AN INVESTIGATION IN THE HOME AND INTERVIEW A CHILD WITHOUT EXIGENT
(IMMINENT “PHYSICAL” DANGER) OR PROBABLE
The decision in the case of Doe et al, v. Heck et al (No. 01-3648,
App. Lexis 7144) will affect the manner in which law enforcement and
Child Protective Services (“CPS”) investigations of alleged child abuse or neglect
are conducted. The decision of the 7th
Circuit Court of Appeals found that the practice of a “no prior consent”
interview of a child will ordinarily constitute a “clear violation” of the
constitutional rights of parents under the 4th and 14th
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. According to the Court, the investigative
interview of a child constitutes a “search and seizure” and, when conducted on
private property without “consent, a warrant, probable cause, or exigent
circumstances,” such an interview is an unreasonable search and seizure in
violation of the rights of the parent, child, and, possibly the owner of the
The mere possibility or risk of harm does
not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstance that would justify a forced
warrantless entry and a warrantless seizure of a child. Hurlman v. Rice, (2nd Cir. 1991)
due-process violation occurs when a state-required breakup of a natural family
is founded solely on a “best interests” analysis that is not supported by the
requisite proof of parental unfitness. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255,
HEARSAY STATEMENTS INADMISSIBLE FROM CASE
POLICE COUNSELORS AND PHYSICIANS
The Court of Appeals of Kentuckyvacated and remanded a decision by
the Barren Circuit Court which terminated parental rights because of sexual
abuse. The court found that a child’s
statements to a counselor during therapy and a physician during a physical
examination were hearsay and inadmissible at trial under the U.S. Supreme Court
case, Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L.
Ed. 2d 177 (2004), because the child did not
testify at trial and there was no opportunity for cross-examination of the
child. Because the child’s statements
were inadmissible, the child welfare agency failed to present clear and
convincing evidence that the child had been sexually abused. Cite:
NO. 2004-CA-001979-ME and NO. 2004-CA-002032-ME, 2005 Ky. App. LEXIS 163 (Ky. Ct. App 2005)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: In re TY.B & In re TI.B
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed a
lower court’s order terminating a father’s parental rights to his children,
based on that court’s finding of neglect; the appeals court holding that the
erroneous termination order was based on inadmissible hearsay testimony. The Court of Appeals concluded that the father
adequately preserved his objection to admission of the testimony, and
consequently reversed the termination order and remanded the case for further
proceedings consistent with its opinion. Cite:
No. 01-FS-1307; No. 01-FS-1320; 2005 D.C. App. LEXIS 390 (D.C. July 21, 2005)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Authors. 1
1 – Never Ever Trust Anyone from CPS/DCF.. 2
2 – Are All CPS Workers in the United States Subject to the 4th And 14th
3 – The Fourth Amendment’s Impact on Child Abuse Investigations. 8
4 – When Is Consent Not Consent?.. 8
6 – Do Children Have Legal Standing to Sue CPS for Their Illegal Abduction from
Their Home and Violating Their 4th and 14th Amendment Rights?.. 11
7 – Summary of Family Rights (Family Association) 12
8 – Warrantless Entry. 12
9 – Due Process. 13
10 – Seizures (Child Removals) 14
11 – Immunity. 15
12 – Decisions of the United States Supreme Court Upholding Parental Rights
as “Fundamental”. 16
This is only a guide to your constitutional protections in the
context of an investigation of alleged child abuse and neglect by Child
Protective Services (“CPS”). Every state
has variances of CPS in one form or another.
Some are called DCF, DHS, DSS, DCYS, DCFS, HRS, CYS and FIA,
collectively known as “CPS” for the purposes of this handbook. The material in this handbook should be
supplemented by your own careful study of the 4th and 14th
Amendments and other Constitutional protections that are guaranteed even in the
context of dealing with CPS.
The intent of this handbook is to inform parents, caregivers and
their attorneys that they can stand up against CPS and Juvenile Judges when
they infringe upon the rights of both parents and children. As you read this handbook, you will be amazed
what your rights are and how CPS conspires with the Assistant Attorney General
(“AAG”) who then in turn has the Judge issue warrant/orders that are unlawful
and unconstitutional under the law.
Contrary to what any CPS officials, the AAG, Juvenile Judge or any
social workers may say, they are all subject to and must yield to the 4th and
14th Amendment just like police officers according to the Circuit and District
Courts of the United States
and the Supreme Court. CPS workers can
be sued for violations of your 4th and 14th Amendments, they lose their
“immunity” by those “Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law” and must be
sued in their “Official and Individual” capacity in order to succeed in a §§
1983 and 1985 civil right’s lawsuit. If
the police assisted CPS in that deprivation of rights, they also lose immunity
and can be sued for assisting CPS in the violation of both yours and your
child’s rights when they illegally abduct your children or enter your home
without probable cause or exigent circumstances, which are required under the
warrant clause of the 14th Amendment.
The authors of this handbook are not attorneys and do not pretend
to be attorneys. The authors were
victims of a false report and were falsely accused by DCF in Connecticut without a proper investigation
being conducted. The authors fought back
for 8 months against this corrupt organization whose order of the day was to
deny them their 4th, 6th and 14th Amendment
rights and to fabricate false charges without evidence.
The author’s goals are to not have another child illegally
abducted from their family; that CPS and juvenile judges start using common
sense before rushing to judgment and to conduct their investigations the same
as police in order to be constitutionally correct and legal; and that CPS MUST
by law comply with the “Warrant Clause” as required by the Constitution and the
Federal Courts whereas they are “governmental officials” and are subject to the
Constitution as are the police. There
are NO EXCEPTIONS to the Constitution for CPS.
You as a parent or caregiver MUST know your rights and be totally
informed of what you have a legal right to have and to express, whether you are
a parent caught up in the very oppressive, abusive and many times unlawful
actions of CPS or if you have never been investigated by CPS. Many individuals come to the wrong conclusion
that the parents must have been abusive or neglectful for CPS to investigate,
this is just a myth. The fact of the
matter is that over 80% of the calls phoned into CPS are false and bogus.
Another myth is that CPS can conduct an investigation in your home
without your consent and speak to your child without your consent. CPS employees will lie to you and tell you
they do not need your consent. The fact
of the matter is they absolutely need your consent to come into your home and
speak with your children. If there is no
“exigent circumstances” (imminent danger) to your children with “probable
cause” (credible witness) to support a warrant, CPS anywhere in the United
States cannot lawfully enter your home and speak with you and your
children. In fact, it is illegal. You can sue the social worker and the police
who assist them and both lose immunity from being sued.
If CPS lies to the AAG and the Judge to get a warrant/order and
you can prove it, that also is a 4th and 14th Amendment
rights violation which is a civil rights violation under § 1983 and conspiracy
against rights covered under § 1985. If
a CPS official knocks on your door, has no legal warrant, you refuse
them entry, and the worker then threatens you with calling the police, this is
also illegal and unlawful and both lose immunity. This is coercion, threatening and
intimidation tactics even if the police only got the door open so CPS official
can gain entry. Both can be sued.
Remember, CPS officials will not tell you your rights. In fact, they are going to do everything in
their power including lying to you and threatening you with police presence
telling you that you have to let them in.
The police may even threaten you to let CPS in because you are
obstructing an investigation. Many
police officers do not realize that CPS MUST comply with the warrant clause of
the 14th Amendment or be sued for violating it.
CPS does not have a legal right to conduct an investigation of
alleged child abuse or neglect in a private home without your consent. In fact removing a child from your home without
your consent even for several hours is a “seizure” under federal law. Speaking to your children without your
consent is also a “seizure” under the law.
If CPS cannot support a warrant and show that the child is in immanent
danger along with probable cause, CPS cannot enter your home and speak with
your children. Remember, anonymous calls
into CPS are NEVER probable cause under the Warrant Clause. And even if they got a name and number from
the reporter on the end of the phone, that also does not support probable cause
under the law. CPS must by law,
investigate the caller to determine if he or she is the person who they say
they are and that what they said is credible.
The call alone, standing by itself, is insufficient to support probable
cause under the law. Many bogus calls
are made by disgruntle neighbors, ex-spouses, or someone wanting to get revenge. So CPS needs to show the same due diligence
as the police to obtain sworn statements.
All CPS agencies across the country have an exaggerated view of their
power. What you think is or is not abuse
or neglect, CPS has a totally different definition. The definition is whatever they want it to
be. DCF will lie to you, mark my word, and
tell you that they can do anything they want and have total immunity. Tell that to the half dozen social workers currently
sitting in jail in California,
they lied to the judge. We will discuss
in further detail what CPS and the police can and can not do.
THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THERE IS A PRESUMPTION
THAT A FIT PARENT ACTS IN THEIR CHILDREN’S
NOT CHILD PROTECTION (CPS) OR YOUR STATE
The United States Supreme Court has
stated: “There is a presumption that fit parents act in their children’s
best interests, Parham v. J. R.,
442 U. S. 584, 602; there is normally no reason or compelling interest
for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further
question fit parents’ ability to make the best decisions regarding their
v. Flores, 507 U. S.
292, 304. The state may not
interfere in child rearing decisions when a fit parent is available. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).
Consequently, the State of Connecticut or
any state can not use the “best interest of the child” standard to substitute
its judgment for a fit parent and parroting that term is “legally insufficient”
to use in the court to force parents to
follow some arbitrary standard, case plan or horse and pony show. The State cannot usurp a fit parent’s
decision making related to parental spending for their children, i.e. child
support without either a demonstration the parent is unfit or there is proven
harm to the child. In other words, the
state and Child Protective Services can not impose a standard of living dealing
with the rearing of children. When they
violate this fundamental right, they would be intruding on the family’s life
and liberty interest. The 1st
Amendment bars such action because the rearing of children and the best
interest of children is often based on ones religious beliefs, i.e. the
separation of church and state. By the
state imposing any standard of living or the rearing of children, they are
putting forth a religious standard by their actions i.e. how you act, what to
feed the child, how to dress the child, whether or not to home school and so
on. The courts and the state lack
jurisdiction on what goes on in the house even though they disagree with the
choices made by parents, the Plaintiffs term this “parental immunity.” It’s none of the state’s business on how you
are to raise your children. In other
words, they can not falsely accuse parents of abuse or neglect just because
they disagree with the method of child rearing or the standard in which they
State Law provisions mandate that the
State invade the family, through the judiciary, to examine, evaluate, determine
and conclude the terms and nature of the interpersonal relationship, spousal
roles, spousal conduct, parental decision making, parenting conduct, parental
spending, economic standard of living, occupations, education, savings, assets,
charitable contributions and most importantly the intimate emotional,
psychological and physical details of the parties and family during their
marriage granting the judiciary a broad range of discretion to apply a property
stripping statute with a standard of equity.
This would be an abuse of the judicial power and the judicial system to
intrude into U.S.
citizen’s lives and violate their privacy rights. It is not the state’s right or jurisdiction
to examine the day to day decisions and choices of citizens and then sit there
in judgment and then force parents to follow conflicting standards with threat
of harm for noncompliance i.e. abduction of children.
The United States Constitution’s
Fourteenth Amendment contains a recognized Right to Privacy. This fundamental Right to Privacy encompasses
the Privacy Protected Zone of Parenting.
The Plaintiff asserts that DCF policy and Connecticut General Statutes
impermissibly infringe the Federal Right to Privacy to the extent they mandate
the parent to support his or her children beyond a standard to prevent harm to
them. They substitute the State s
judgment for the parent’s judgment as to the best interest of his or her children. The challenged statutes do not mandate a
review to determine if demonstrable harm exists to the children in determining
the amount of support that the parent must provide.
The State is not permitted and lacks
jurisdiction to determine care and maintenance, i.e. spending, i.e. child discipline,
decisions of a fit parent based on his or her income in an intact marriage
other than to prevent harm to a child.
There is no basis for the State to have a statute that mandates a fit
divorced parent should support their child to a different standard, i.e. the
standard of the best interests of a child.
Furthermore, the State must not so mandate absent a demonstration that
the choice of support provided by the parent has resulted in harm to his or her
The U.S. Supreme Court has mandated that
the standard for the State to intrude in parenting decisions relating to
grandparent visitation is no longer best interests of the child. Troxel
v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57; 120
S.Ct. 2054 (2000). This court
should recognize the changed standard of State intrusion in parenting should
also apply to the context of parents care, control, and maintenance, i.e.
spending, i.e. child discipline decisions, on behalf of his or her children.
In conclusion, unless CPS and the Attorney
General’s Office can provide the requisite proof of parental unfitness, you’re State,
CPS, the Attorney General’s Office and the Juvenile Courts can’t make on behalf
of the parents or for the child unless the parent is adjudicated unfit.
And as long as there is one fit parent, CPS and the Attorney General’s Office
can not interfere or remove a single child.
Protection Threats to Take Children Ruled Illegal
By Ofelia Casillas and Matt O’Connor
A federal judge ruled that Illinoisfamilies were
deprived of their constitutional rights when state child welfare officials
threatened to separate parents from their children during abuse investigations.
In a decision made public Monday, U.S.
District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer found “ample evidence” that families
suffered emotional and psychological injuries because the separations lasted
“for more than a brief or temporary period.”
The judge didn’t fault the Illinois
Department of Children and Family Services for erring on the side of caution in
such cases, but she held that parents had a right to know the length of the
expected separations and how to contest the restrictions.
In telephone interviews with the Tribune,
families described being shocked, paranoid and frightened by the allegations
that some thought would result in them losing their children. Parents felt that
caseworkers assumed them to be guilty.
A father from Skokie
spent almost a year away from his family, and the effects of the rift that
developed between them remain years later.
“I don’t think it can ever be
repaired. We are all broken up; we are not bonded the way that we used to
be,” said the father, who requested that he only be identified by his
first name, Patrick. “I cannot get over what they did to me. It devastated
my whole entire life. I can never be the same again.”
The ruling shows the dilemma facing the
oft-criticized DCFS in its charge to protect children from harm but also keep
families together when possible.
At issue are safety plans, part of the
wholesale reforms instituted by DCFS after the public uproar over the horrific
1993 death of 3-year-old Joseph Wallace, who was killed by his mentally ill
mother after he was returned to her by the state.
In her decision, Pallmeyer essentially
held that DCFS had gone too far in protecting children and had eroded the
constitutional rights of parents.
The safety plans are supposedly voluntary
agreements by parents in most cases to leave their home indefinitely or stay
under constant supervision after investigations into child abuse or neglect are
launched, often based on tips to DCFS.
But most of the families who testified at
a 22-day hearing in 2002 and 2003 said the investigators threatened to take
away their children unless they agreed to the safety plans.
“When an investigator expressly or
implicitly conveys that failure to accept a plan will result in the removal of
the children for more than a brief or temporary period of time, it constitutes
a threat sufficient to deem the family’s agreement coerced, and to implicate
due process rights,” Pallmeyer wrote in the 59-page opinion.
“Significantly, [DCFS] has not
identified a single family that, faced with such an express or implied threat
of protective custody, chose to reject the plan,” the judge said.
Pallmeyer gave DCFS 60 days to develop
“constitutionally adequate procedures” for families to contest the
Diane Redleaf, one of the plaintiffs’
attorneys, said about 10 families were involved in the court case, but that
Pallmeyer’s decision would affect thousands of families who agree to safety
plans each year.
“Instead of protecting children, the
state is actually destroying families and hurting children,” Redleaf said.
Diane Jackson, a DCFS spokeswoman, said
Pallmeyer’s review of safety plans was limited to 2002 and before and didn’t
consider changes since then.
“We have definitely made
changes,” said Jackson,
declining to be more specific until DCFS can report to Pallmeyer.
Cook County Public Guardian Robert Harris
applauded Pallmeyer’s decision.
No real due process’
“It’s abridging both the children’s
and the parents’ rights to have that amorphous safety plan that could go on
forever,” he said. “There is no real due process. There is no
[procedure] to complain unless you have some money to hire a lawyer.”
This is the second significant ruling by
Pallmeyer to go against DCFS stemming from the same lawsuit. In 2001, she found
that DCFS investigators often made findings of child abuse on little evidence,
unfairly blacklisting professionals accused of wrongdoing. The judge extended
new protections to teachers, day-care providers, nannies, social workers and
others who work directly with children. Those protections are intended to keep
the falsely accused from losing their jobs.
As part of assessing whether a child is in
danger, DCFS specialists determine whether one of 15 safety factors is present,
including if a household member is violent or sexual abuse is suspected. For
DCFS to determine a child to be unsafe requires the finding of only one safety
factor, some of which require little or no evidence of risk of harm–a fact
that drew the criticism of plaintiffs.
But Pallmeyer defended that practice,
concluding that “it is not improper for DCFS to err on the side of caution
given the significant state interest in protecting children from harm.”
But the plans can’t remain in place
indefinitely, she held.
According to the decision, one day-care
worker accused of improperly touching a child was forced out of his own home
for nearly a year before a judge at an administrative hearing cleared him of
the charges–based in part on information available early on.
Patrick, the father from Skokie,
spent 11 months away from his three children and his wife, missing their
birthdays and a wedding anniversary.
Even though the allegations concerned his
workplace, a DCFS investigator threatened to put his children–a boy, then 10,
and two girls, then 12 and 13–in a foster home unless he moved out of their
home, Patrick said Monday.
He went home, grabbed a few belongings and
later moved in with his sister inChicago.
“I was put out on the street,”
said Patrick, crying. “I was just totally violated.”
It wasn’t until a month later that he was
able to explain the circumstances to his children after the caseworker allowed
Soon, the father was able to see his
children at church and later had supervised visits. The goodbyes were
heart-wrenching, Patrick recalled.
“I would have to come here after my
wife got off work, and then I would have to leave,” the father said.
“It was really emotional every time I left, every single night. And my
kids didn’t understand why I had to leave. They were very confused and very
hurt. They still are.”
At the time, his son was acting up at
school. His daughters cried in class, their grades falling, he said.
After he was cleared of the allegations in
December 2001, Patrick was unable to find a job in child care, despite about a
decade of experience. The lengthy separation changed his relationship with his
family, he said.
“I never got any type of apology, any
type of thing to say your kids might be messed up, let us give you
counseling,” Patrick said of DCFS.
In another case, James Redlin, a teacher,
was accused by a passenger of inappropriately touching his son, Joey, then 6,
who suffers from a mild form of autism, during a Metra train ride to the Field Museum
in the summer of 2000.
Joey’s mother, Susan Redlin, said Monday
that her husband was tickling their son, carrying the boy on his lap and
holding him up to look out the window.
DCFS required that the father not act as
an independent caretaker for his son until the case was resolved, effectively
leaving the family “prisoners” in their own home, according to the
Joey’s mother, responsible for supervising
her son under the safety plan, has multiple sclerosis and uses a wheelchair.
“My husband and son could not be out of my sight,” she said.
The husband was cleared of wrongdoing by
September. Until then, father and son were forced to forgo trail hikes,
carnival adventures, movie outings–and plans to teach Joey how to ride a bike.
“It made Jim awfully leery of being
alone with Joey, even hugging him, even holding hands,” Susan Redlin said.
“That was the worst. If I enjoy hugging my [son], am I a pervert?”
Just Sunday, Susan Redlin said, she was
out with her son and was about to swat him jokingly on the rear when she
“I did not do that,” she said.
“What if someone is watching?”
The Social Worker At Your Door: 10 Helpful Hints
By Christopher J. Klicka, Senior Counsel for the
Home School Legal Defense Association
More and more frequently, home schoolers are turned in
on child abuse hotlines to social service agencies. Families who do not like home schoolers can
make an anonymous phone call to the child abuse hotline and fabricate abuse
stories about home schoolers. The social
worker then has an obligation to investigate. Each state has a different policy for social
workers, but generally they want to come into the family’s home and speak with
the children separately. To allow either of these to occur involves great risk
to the family.
The home school parent, however, should be very
cautious when an individual identifies himself as a social worker. In fact,
there are several tips that a family should follow:
get the business card of the social worker. This way, when you call your attorney or
Home School Legal Defense Association, if you are a member, the attorney
will be able to contact the social worker on your behalf. If the situation
is hostile, HSLDA members should immediately call our office and hand the
phone out the door so an HSLDA lawyer can talk to the social worker. We have a 24 hour emergency number.
out the allegations. Do not fall
for the frequently used tactic of the social worker who would tell the
unsuspecting victims that they can only give you the allegations after
they have come into your home and spoken to your child separately. You generally have the right to know the
allegations without allowing them in your home.
let the social worker in your house without a warrant or court order. All the cases that you have heard about
where children are snatched from the home usually involve families waiving
their Fourth Amendment right to be free from such searches and seizures by
agreeing to allow the social worker to come inside the home. A warrant requires “probable
cause” which does not include an anonymous tip or a mere suspicion. This is guaranteed under the Fourth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the courts. (In extremely rare situations, police may
enter a home without a warrant if there are exigent circumstances, i.e.,
police are aware of immediate danger or harm to the child.)
However, in some instances,
social workers or police threaten to use force to come into a home. If you encounter a situation which escalates
to this level, record the conversation if at all possible, but be sure to
inform the police officer or social worker that you are doing this. If entry is going to be made under duress you
should say and do the following: “I am closing my front door, but it is
unlocked. I will not physically prevent
you from entering, and I will not physically resist you in any way. But you do not have my permission to enter. If you open my door and enter, you do so
without my consent, and I will seek legal action for an illegal entry.”
let the social worker talk to your children alone without a court order. On nearly every other incident concerning
our members, HSLDA has been able to keep the social worker away from the
children. On a few occasions,
social workers have been allowed to talk with children, particularly where
severe allegations are involved. In
these instances, an attorney, chosen by the parent, has been present. At other times, HSLDA had children stand
by the door and greet the social worker, but not be subject to any
the official that you will call back after you speak with your attorney. Call your attorney or HSLDA, if you are a
intimidations. Normally, social workers are trained to bluff. They will routinely threaten to acquire a
court order, knowing full well that there is no evidence on which to
secure an order. In 98 percent of the contacts that HSLDA handles, the
threats turn out to be bluffs. However, it is always important to secure
an attorney in these matters, since there are occasions where social
workers are able to obtain a court order with flimsy evidence. HSLDA
members should call our office in such situations.
to give the officials the following supporting evidence:
- a statement from your doctor, after he has
examined your children, if the allegations involve some type of physical
- references from individuals who can vouch for
your being good parents;
- evidence of the legality of your home school
program. If your home school is an
issue, HSLDA attorneys routinely assist member families by convincing
social workers of this aspect of an investigation.
a tape recorder and/or witnesses to any subsequent meeting. Often times HSLDA will arrange a meeting
between the social worker and our member family after preparing the
parents on what to discuss and what not to discuss. The discussion at the meeting should be
limited to the specific allegations and you should avoid telling them
about past events beyond what they know. Usually, anonymous tips are all they have
to go on, which is not sufficient to take someone to court. What you give
them can and will be used against you.
your church, and put the investigation on your prayer chain. Over and over
again, HSLDA has seen God deliver home schoolers from this scary scenario.
potential situations that could lead to a child welfare investigation.
- Conduct public relations with your immediate
neighbors and acquaintances regarding the legality and success of home
- Do not spank children in public.
- Do not spank someone else’s child unless they
are close Christian friends.
- Avoid leaving young children at home alone.
In order for a social worker to get a warrant to come
and enter a home and interview children separately, he is normally required, by
both statute and the U.S. Constitution, to prove that there is some
“cause.” This is a term that
is synonymous with the term “probable cause”. “Probable cause” or cause shown is
reliable evidence that must be corroborated by other evidence if the tip is
anonymous. In other words, an anonymous tip alone and mere suspicion is not
enough for a social worker to obtain a warrant.
There have been some home-schooled families who have
been faced with a warrant even though there was not probable cause. HSLDA has been able to overturn these in court
so that the order to enter the home was never carried out. Home
School Legal Defense
Association is committed to defending every member family who is being
investigated by social workers, provided the allegations involve home
schooling. In instances when the
allegations have nothing to do with home schooling, HSLDA will routinely
counsel most member families on how to meet with the social worker and will
talk to the social worker to try to resolve the situation. If it cannot be resolved, which it normally
can be in most instances by HSLDA’s involvement, the family is responsible for
hiring their own attorney.
HSLDA is beginning to work with states to reform the
child welfare laws to guarantee more freedom for parents and better protection
for their parental rights. HSLDA will be
sending out Alerts to its members in various states where such legislation is
drafted and submitted as a bill.
For further information on
how to deal with social workers, HSLDA recommends Home Schooling: The Right
Choice, which was written with the intention of informing home school
parents of their rights in order to prevent them from becoming a statistic. Federal statistics have shown that up to 60
percent of children removed from homes, upon later review, should never have
been removed. The child welfare system
is out of control, and we need to be prepared. To obtain The Right Choice or join the
Home School Legal Defense Association, call 540-338-5600, or write HSLDA, P.O. Box 3000, Purcellville,
Amendment’s Impact on Child Abuse Investigations
Michael P. Farris
General Counsel, Home
School Legal Defense
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit said it best, “The government’s interest in the welfare of
children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse, but also
protecting children’s interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in
the lawfully exercised authority of their parents.” Calabretta v.
Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (1999).
This statement came in a case which held that social
workers who, in pursuit of a child abuse investigation, invaded a family home
without a warrant violate the Fourth Amendment rights of both children and
parents. Upon remand for the damages phase of the trial, the social workers,
the police officers, and the governments that employed them settled this civil
rights case for $150,000.
The facts in the Calabretta case are fairly typical
for the kind of situation we see almost daily at Home School Legal Defense
Association. An anonymous call came into a hotline manned by social workers in Yolo County, California.
The tipster said that he/she had heard a child’s voice coming from the
Calabretta home or property which cried out, “No, daddy, no.” This
same tipster said that an unnamed neighbor had told her that she had heard a
child cry out from the back yard, “No, no, no” on another occasion.
The tipster added that the family was home schooling
their children and noted that the family was very religious. During the course
of discovery in the civil rights case, we found that the social worker listed
the home schooling and religious information not as merely general background
facts but as “risk factors” in her internal reports.
The social worker came to investigate the matter four
days after receiving the call. Acting on the advice HSLDA gives all its
members, Mrs. Calabretta refused to let the social worker into the home because
she did not have a warrant.
The social worker returned to her office and requested
that another worker be sent to follow up while she was on vacation. Since this
was not done, ten days later, she returned to the home with a police officer
and demanded that Mrs. Calabretta allow them to enter. The police officer
informed Mrs. Calabretta that they did not need a warrant for any child abuse
investigation and when she still refused to allow entry he told her that they
would enter with or without her consent.
Not wanting a physical confrontation with a police
officer, Mrs. Calabretta opened the door and allowed the social worker and the
police officer to enter. A partial strip search was done of one of the young
Calabretta children, and an interview was conducted with the family’s 12 year
The social worker, police officer, and their
government agencies moved to dismiss claiming that there was no violation of
any clearly established constitutional right. Both the federal district court
and the Ninth Circuit disagreed with these arguments.
Contrary to the assumption of hundreds of social
workers that we have interacted with at HSLDA, the Ninth Circuit held that the
Fourth Amendment applies just as much to a child abuse investigation as it does
to any criminal or other governmental investigation. Social workers are not
exempt from the requirements of the Fourth Amendment when they act alone. They
are not exempt from its rules if they are accompanied by a police officer. And
police officers are not exempt from the requirement even if all they do is get
the front door open for the social worker.
What are the requirements of the Fourth Amendment?
The general rule is that unreasonable searches and seizures
are banned. But the second part of the rule is the most important in this
context. All warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable.
There are two and only two recognized exceptions to
the requirement of having a warrant for the conduct of a child abuse
adult in charge of the premises gives the social worker his/her free and
voluntary consent to enter the home.
social worker possesses evidence that meets two standards:
(a) it satisfies the legal
standard of establishing probable cause; and
(b) the evidence demonstrates
that there are exigent circumstances relative to the health of the children.
If a police officer says, “If you don’t let us in
your home we will break down your door”—a parent who then opens the door
has not given free and voluntary consent. If a social worker says, “If you
don’t let me in the home I will take your children away”—a parent who then
opens the door has not given free and voluntary consent. Threats to go get a
“pick up order” negate consent. Any type of communication which
conveys the idea to the parent that they have no realistic alternative but to
allow entry negates any claim that the entry was lawfully gained through the
channel of consent.
It should be remembered that consent is only one of
the three valid ways to gain entry: (warrant, consent, or probable cause and
exigent circumstances.) There is nothing improper about saying, “We have a
warrant you must let us in” or “We have solid evidence that your
child is in extreme danger, you must let us in.” Such statements indicate
that the social worker is relying on some theory other than consent to gain
lawful entry. Of course, the social worker must indeed have a warrant if such a
claim is made. And, in similar fashion, if a claim is made that the entry is
being made upon probable cause of exigent circumstances, then that must also be
Probable Cause & Exigent Circumstances
The Fourth Amendment does not put a barrier in the way
of a social worker who has reliable evidence that a child is in imminent
danger. For example, if a hotline call comes in and says, “My name is
Mildred Smith, here is my address and phone number. I was visiting my
grandchildren this morning and I discovered that one of my grandchildren, Johnny,
age 5, is being locked in his bedroom without food for days at a time, and he
looked pale and weak to me”—the social worker certainly has evidence of
exigent circumstances and is only one step away from having probable cause.
Since the report has been received over the telephone,
it is possible that the tipster is an imposter and not the child’s grandmother.
A quick verification of the relationship can be made in a variety of ways and
once verified, the informant, would satisfy the legal test of reliability which
is necessary to establish probable cause.
However, a case handled by HSLDA in San Bernadino
County, California, illustrates that even a grandparent cannot be considered a
per se reliable informant.
A grandfather called in a hotline complaint with two
totally separate allegations of sexual abuse. The first claim was that his son,
who was a boarder in an unrelated family’s home, was sexually abusing the
children in that home. The second claim concerned his daughter and her husband.
The claim here was that the husband was sexually abusing their children. These
were two separate allegations in two separate homes.
The social workers went to the home of the unrelated
family first to investigate the claims about the tipster’s son. They found the
claims to be utterly spurious. They had gained entry into the home based on the
consent of the children’s parents.
The following day they went to the home of the
tipster’s daughter. The daughter had talked to her brother in the meantime and
knew that her father had made a false report about him. When the social workers
arrived at her home, she informed them that they were in pursuit of a report
made by a known false reporter—her father. Moreover, she informed the social
workers that she had previously obtained a court order requiring her father to
stay away from her family and children based on his prior acts of harassment.
Despite the fact that the social workers knew that
their reporter had been previously found to be unreliable—they insisted that
they would enter the family home without consent.
In a civil rights suit we brought against the social
workers and police officers, they settled the matter with a substantial payment
to the family in satisfaction of their claims that the entry was in violation
of their civil rights because the evidence in their possession did not satisfy
the standard of probable cause.
It is not enough to have information that the children
are in some form of serious danger. The evidence must also pass a test of
reliability that our justice system calls probable cause.
In the first appellate case I ever handled in this
area, H.R. v. State Department of Human Resources, 612 So. 2d 477 (Ala.
Ct. App. 1992); the court held that an anonymous tip standing alone never
amounts to probable cause. The Calabretta court held the same thing, as
have numerous other decisions which have faced the issue directly.
On the surface, this places the social worker in a
dilemma. On the one hand, state statutes, local regulations, and the perception
of federal mandates seem to require a social worker to conduct an investigation
on the basis of an anonymous tip. But, on the other hand, the courts are
holding in case after case that if you do enter a home based on nothing more
than an anonymous tip you are violating the Fourth Amendment rights of those
being investigated. What do you do?
The answer is: Pay attention to the details of each
set of the rules.
First and foremost, keep in mind that the ultimate
federal mandate is the Constitution of the United States. No federal law can
condition your receipt of federal funds on the basis that you violate some
other provision of the Constitution. South
Dakota v. Dole, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
Second, realize that the mandate to conduct an
investigation does not require you to enter every home. Even if your rules or
statutes seem to expressly require entry into every home, such rules and
statutes must be construed in a manner consistent with the Constitution. The
net requirement is this: if your laws and regulations seem to require entry
into every home, then social workers should be instructed to add this caveat:
“when it is constitutional for me to do so.”
Obviously, nothing in the Constitution prevents a
social worker from going to a home and simply asking to come in. If the parent
or guardian says “yes”, there is no constitutional violation
whatsoever—provided that there was no coercion.
This covers the vast majority of investigations. The
overwhelming response of people being investigated is to allow the social
worker to enter the home and conduct whatever investigation is reasonably
The second alternative is to seek a warrant or entry
order. The Fourth Amendment itself spells out the evidence required for a
warrant or entry order. No warrant shall issue but on probable cause. The
United States Supreme Court has held that courts may not use a different
standard other than probable cause for the issuance of such orders. Griffin
If a court issues a warrant based on an uncorroborated
anonymous tip, the warrant will not survive a judicial challenge in the higher
courts. Anonymous tips are never probable cause.
This was the essence of the decision in the case of H.R.
v. Alabama. In that case, the social worker took the position that she had
to enter every home no matter what the allegation.
In court, I gave her some improbable allegations
involving anonymous tipsters angry at government officials demanding that
social workers investigate these officials for abusing their own children. Her
position was that she had to enter the home of all those who were reported. The
trial judge sustained her position and held that the mere receipt of a report
of child abuse or neglect was sufficient for the issuance of an entry order.
However, the trial judge’s decision was reversed by the Alabama Court of
Appeals. That court held that the Alabama
statute’s requirement of “cause shown” had to be read in the light of
the Fourth Amendment. An anonymous tip standing alone did not meet the standard
of cause shown.
If a social worker receives an anonymous tip, he/she
can always go to the home and ask permission for entry. If permission is
denied, then the social worker—if he/she believes it is justified—can seek
independent sources to attempt to verify the tipster’s information. For
example, if a tipster says, that the child is covered with bruises from head to
toe, contact could be made with the child’s teacher to see if he/she has ever
seen such bruises. If the teacher says “Yes, I see them all the time,”
then the report has been corroborated and upon that kind of evidence the social
worker probably has the basis for either the issuance of a warrant or an entry
on the basis of exigent circumstances if it is not possible to get a warrant in
a reasonable time.
It is my opinion that the welfare of children is absolutely consistent with our
constitutional requirements. Children are not well-served if they are subjected
to investigations based on false allegations. Little children can be traumatized
by investigations in ways that are unintended by the social worker. However, to
a small child all they know is that a strange adult is taking off their
clothing while their mother is sobbing in the next room in the presence of an
armed police officer. This does not seem to a child to be a proper invasion of
their person—quite different, for example, from an examination by a doctor when
their mother is present and cooperating.
The misuse of anonymous tips are well-known. Personal
vendettas, neighborhood squabbles, disputes on the Little League field, are
turned into maliciously false allegations breathed into a hotline. From my
perspective, there is no reason whatsoever in any case, for a report to be
anonymous. There is every reason to keep the reports confidential. The
difference between an anonymous report and a confidential report is obvious. In
an anonymous report the social worker or police officer does not know who the
reporter is and has no evidence of the reliability of their report. There is no
policy reason for keeping social workers or police officers in the dark.
On the other hand, there is every reason to keep the
name of the reporter confidential. There are a great number of reasons that the
person being investigated shouldn’t know who made the call.
Moreover, precious resources are diverted from
children who are truly in need of protection when social workers are chasing
false allegations breathed into a telephone by a malicious anonymous tipster.
If such a tipster is told: “May we please have your name, address, and
phone number? We will keep this totally confidential,” it is highly
probable that the vast majority of reports made in good faith will give such
information. It is also probable that those making maliciously false allegations
will simply hang up.
Children are well-served when good faith allegations
are investigated. They are equally well-served if malicious allegations can be
screened out without the need for invasion.
TRUST ANYONE FROM CPS/DCF
You MUST understand that CPS will not give
you or your spouse any Miranda warning nor do they have too. If CPS shows up at your door and tells you
they need to speak with you and your children, you have the legal right to deny
them entry under the 4th and 14th Amendment. But before they leave, you should bring your
children to the door but never open it, instead show them the children are not
in imminent danger and that they are fine.
If you do not at least show them your children, they could come back
with an unlawful and unconstitutional warrant even though your children are not
in imminent danger.
Everything CPS sees and hears is written
down and eventually given to the AAG for your possible prosecution. You also need to know that if the focus of
the investigation is on your spouse or significant other you may think you may
not be charged with anything and that you are the non-offending spouse, WRONG. If your spouse gets charged with anything,
you are probably going to get charged with allowing it to happen. So if a spouse lies and makes things up,
he/she is also confessing that he allowed whatever he/she alleges.
What you say will more then likely not be
written down the way you said it or meant it.
For example, a female CPS worker asks the wife, “Does your husband yell
at the children?” your response could be once in a while. Then they ask, “Does he yell at you and argue
with you. Your response could be “yes we
argue sometimes and he may raise his voice.”
The next question is, “Does your husband drink alcohol?” Your response could be “yes he has several
drinks a week.” Now let’s translate
those benign responses and see what CPS may write in her paperwork. “When the father drinks, he yells at children
and wife and wife is a victim of domestic violence.” This is a far cry on what really took place
in that conversation. CPS routinely will
take what you say out of context and actually lie in their reports in order to
have a successful prosecution of their case.
They have an end game in mine and they will misrepresent the facts and
circumstances surrounding what may or may not have happened.
Something similar happened to the authors
where DCF employees lied in front of the judge.
They said the husband was a victim of domestic violence even though all five
members of the family stated clearly that there was never any domestic
violence. The husband would like to know
when this occurred because it did not happen when he was there. They will also misrepresent the condition of
your home even if you were sick or injured and did not have a chance to
straighten anything out. CPS will not
put anything exculpatory in the record so anyone that reads her notes will read
that the house was a mess and cluttered.
Never give them a chance to falsify the record or twist your words. The best advice we can offer is before
letting any CPS official in your home, if you choose to do so, is to tell them
you want your attorney there when they come and schedule a time for the meeting.
Remember, CPS could care less about your
rights or your children’s constitutional rights. Removing a child from a safe home is more
harmful then most alleged allegations as stated by many judges. They will lie and say they have to come in and
you have to comply. Remember CPS has no
statutory authority to enter your home when no crime has been committed. They are trained to lie to you to get in any
way they can and this comes from interviewing employees at DCF. Do not sign anything or agree to anything even
if you are not guilty and you agree to go through some horse and pony
show. That will be used against you as
if you admitted to it. The case plan or
whatever they call it in your state is essentially a plea of guilty to the
charges. If you agree to it and sign it,
you are admitting to the abuse and/or neglect allegations and to the contents
of the record. You are assisting them in
their case against you and in your own prosecution if you sign their agreements,
case plan or menu. Demand a trial at the
very first hearing and never stipulate to anything. Force them to prove you are guilty. Do not willingly admit to it by signing a
case plan. Due to ignorance and/or
incompetence, your attorney may tell you to sign their agreement so you can get
your children back sooner. Do not believe
it. This will only speed up the process
of terminating your parental rights.
ARE ALL CPS
WORKERS IN THE UNITED STATES
THE 4TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT?
Yes they are. The Fourth Amendment is applicable to DCF
investigators in the context of an investigation of alleged abuse or neglect as
are all “government officials.” This
issue is brought out best in Walsh v. Erie County
Dept. of Job and Family Services, 3:01-cv-7588. If it is unlawful and unconstitutional for
the police who are government officials, likewise it is for CPS employees who
are also government officials.
The social workers, Darnold and Brown, argued
that “the Fourth Amendment was not applicable to the activities of their social
worker employees.” The social workers claimed,
“entries into private homes by child welfare workers involve neither searches
nor seizures under the Fourth Amendment, and thus can be conducted without
either a warrant or probable cause to believe that a child is at risk of
imminent harm.” The court disagreed and
ruled: “Despite the defendant’s exaggerated view of their powers,
the Fourth Amendment applies to them, as it does to all other officers and
agents of the state whose request to enter, however benign or well-intentioned,
are met by a closed door.” The Court
also stated “The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and
seizures applies whenever an investigator, be it a police officer, a DCF
employee, or any other agent of the state, responds to an alleged instance of
child abuse, neglect, or dependency.” (Emphasis added) Darnold and Brown’s first argument, shot down
by the court. The social workers then
argued that there are exceptions to the Fourth Amendment, and that the
situation with the Walsh children was an “emergency.” Further, the “Defendants argue their entry
into the home, even absent voluntary consent, was reasonable under the
circumstances.” They point to the
anonymous complaint about clutter on the front porch; and the plaintiff’s
attempt to leave.
These circumstances, the
defendants argue, created an ‘emergency situation’ that led Darnold and Brown
reasonably to believe the Walsh children were in danger of imminent harm. (This is the old “emergency” excuse that has
been used for years by social workers.) The
Court again disagreed and ruled: “There is nothing inherently unusual or
dangerous about cluttered premises, much less anything about such vaguely
described conditions that could manifest imminent or even possible danger or
harm to young children. If household
‘clutter’ justifies warrantless entry and threats of removal of children and
arrest or citation of their parents, few families are secure and few homes are
safe from unwelcome and unjustified intrusion by state officials and officers.” The Court went on to rule, “They have failed
to show that any exigency that justifies warrantless entry was necessary to
protect the welfare of the plaintiff’s children. In this case, a rational jury could find that
‘no evidence points to the opposite conclusion’ and a lack of ‘sufficient
exigent circumstances to relieve the state actors here of the burden of
obtaining a warrant.’ The social workers’
second argument, shot down by the court.
The social workers, Darnold and
Brown, then argued that they are obligated under law to investigate any
reported case of child abuse, and that supersedes the Fourth Amendment. The social workers argued, “Against these
fundamental rights, the defendants contend that Ohio’s statutory framework for learning
about and investigation allegations of child abuse and neglect supersede their
obligations under the Fourth Amendment.
They point principally to § 2151.421 of the Ohio Revised code as
authority for their warrantless entry into and search of the plaintiff’s
home. That statute imposes a duty on
certain designated professionals and persons who work with children or provide
child care to report instances of apparent child abuse or neglect.” This is the old “mandatory reporter” excuse.
The Court disagreed and ruled: “The defendant’s
argument that the duty to investigate created by § 2151.421(F)(1) exempts them
from the Fourth Amendment misses the mark because, not having received a report
described in § 2151.421(A)(1)(b), they were not, and could not have been,
conducting an investigation pursuant to § 2151.421(F)(1).” The social worker’s third argument, shot down
by the court.
The Court continues with their chastisement of the social
workers: “There can be no doubt that the state can and should protect the
welfare of children who are at risk from acts of abuse and neglect. There likewise can be no doubt that occasions
arise calling for immediate response, even without prior judicial
approval. But those instances are the
exception. Otherwise child welfare
workers would have a free pass into any home in which they have an anonymous
report or poor housekeeping, overcrowding, and insufficient medical care and,
thus perception that children may be at some risk.” The Court continues: “The anonymous phone
call in this case did not constitute a ‘report’ of child abuse or
neglect.” The social workers, Darnold
and Brown, claimed that they were immune from liability, claiming qualified
immunity because “they had not had training in Fourth Amendment law.” In other words, because they thought the
Fourth Amendment did not bind them, they could not be sued for their “mistake.”
The police officers, Chandler
claimed that they could not be sued because they thought the social workers
were not subject to the Fourth Amendment, and they were just helping the social
workers. The Court disagreed and ruled:
“That subjective basis for their ignorance about and actions in violation of
the Fourth Amendment does not relieve them of the consequences of that
ignorance and those actions.” The Court
then lowers the boom by stating: “The claims of defendants Darnold, Brown, Chandler and Kish of qualified
immunity are therefore denied.”
THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT SAID,
PARENTS HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO BE LEFT ALONE BY CPS AND THE POLICE.
The 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals case, Calabretta v.
Floyd, 9th Cir. (1999) “involves whether a social worker and
a police officer were entitled to qualified immunity, for a coerced entry into
a home to investigate suspected child abuse, interrogation of a child, and
strip search of a child, conducted without a search warrant and without a
The court did not agree that the
social worker and the police officer had “qualified immunity” and said, “the
facts in this case are noteworthy for the absence of emergency.” No one was in distress. “The police officer was there to back up the
social worker’s insistence on entry against the mother’s will, not because he
perceived any imminent danger of harm.”
And he should have known better.
Furthermore, “had the information been more alarming, had the social
worker or police officer been alarmed, had there been reason to fear imminent
harm to a child, this would be a different case, one to which we have no
occasion to speak. A reasonable official
would understand that they could not enter the home without consent or a search
The 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals defines the law and states “In our circuit, a reasonable official would
have known that the law barred this entry.
Any government official (CPS) can be held to know that their office does
not give them unrestricted right to enter people’s homes at will. We held in White v. Pierce County (797 F. 2d 812 (9th Cir. 1986),
a child welfare investigation case, that ‘it was settled constitutional law
that, absent exigent circumstances, police could not enter a dwelling without a
warrant even under statutory authority where probable cause existed.’ The principle that government officials cannot
coerce entry into people’s houses without a search warrant or applicability of
an established exception to the requirement of a search warrant is so well
established that any reasonable officer would know it.”
And there we have it: “Any
government official can be held to know that their office does not give
them an unrestricted right to enter peoples’ homes at will. … The fourth
Amendment preserves the ‘right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses … ’ without limiting that right to one kind of government official.” (emphasis added)
In other words, parents have the
constitutional right to exercise their children’s and their 4th and
5th Amendment’s protections and should just say no to social workers
especially when they attempt to coerce or threaten to call the police so they
can conduct their investigation. “A
social worker is not entitled to sacrifice a family’s privacy and dignity to
her own personal views on how parents ought to discipline their children.” (The Constitution and the Bill of Rights
were written to protect the people from the government, not to protect the
government from the people. And within
those documents, the people have the constitutional right to hold the
government accountable when it does deny its citizens their rights under the
law even if it is CPS, the police, or government agency, or local, state, or
The Court’s reasoning for this ruling was
simple and straight forward: “The reasonable expectation of privacy of
individuals in their homes includes the interests of both parents and children
in not having government officials coerce entry in violation of the Fourth
Amendment and humiliate the parents in front of the children. An essential aspect of the privacy of the
home is the parent’s and the child’s interest in the privacy of the
relationship with each other.”
PARROTING OF THE PHRASE “BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD” WITHOUT
SUPPORTING FACTS OR A LEGAL BASIS IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A WARRANT
OR COURT ORDER TO ENTER A HOME.
In North Hudson DYFS v. Koehler Family, filed December 18, 2000,
the Appellate court granted the emergency application on February 6, 2001, to
stay DYFS illegal entry that was granted by the lower court because DYFS in
their infinite wisdom thought it was their right to go into the Koehler home
because the children were not wearing socks in the winter or sleep in
beds. After reviewing the briefs of all
the parties, the appellate court ruled that the order to investigate the
Koehler home was in violation of the law and must be reversed. The Court explained, “[a]bsent some tangible
evidence of abuse or neglect, the Courts do not authorize fishing expeditions
into citizens’ houses.” The Court went
on to say, “[m]ere parroting of the phrase ‘best interest of the child’ without
supporting facts and a legal basis is insufficient to support a Court order
based on reasonableness or any other ground.”
February 14, 2001.
In other words, a juvenile judge’s
decision on whether or not to issue a warrant is a legal one, it is not based
on “best interest of the child” or personal feeling. The United States Supreme Court has held that
courts may not use a different standard other than probable cause for
the issuance of such orders. Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987). If a court issues a warrant based on an
uncorroborated anonymous tip, the warrant will not survive a judicial challenge
in the higher courts. Anonymous tips are
never probable cause. “[I]n context of a
seizure of a child by the State during an abuse investigation . . . a court order is the equivalent of a
warrant.” (Emphasis added) Tenenbaum
v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 602 (2nd Cir. 1999). F.K. v. Iowa district Court for Polk County, Id.”
THE U.S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 7TH CIRCUIT RECENTLY
RULED THAT CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATIONS HELD ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
AND INTERVIEW OF A CHILD WITHOUT CONSENT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The decision in the case of Doe et al, v. Heck et al (No. 01-3648,
2003 US App. Lexis 7144) will affect the manner in which law
enforcement and child protective services investigations of alleged child abuse
or neglect are conducted. The decision
of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found that this practice, that
is “no prior consent” interview of a child, will ordinarily constitute a “clear
violation” of the constitutional rights of parents under the 4th and
14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. According to the Court, the investigative
interview of a child constitutes a “search and seizure” and, when conducted on
private property without “consent, a warrant, probable cause, or exigent
circumstances,” such an interview is an unreasonable search and seizure in
violation of the rights of the parent, child, and, possibly the owner of the
Considering that one
critical purpose of the early stages of an investigation is to determine
whether or not the child is in danger, and if so, from who seems to require a
high threshold level of evidence to commence the interview of a child, whether
the child is on private or public property.
“In our circuit, a reasonable official
would have known that the law barred this entry. Any government official can be held to know
that their office does not give them an unrestricted right to enter peoples’
homes at will. We held in White v. Pierce County a child
welfare investigation case, that ‘it was settled constitutional law that,
absent exigent circumstances, police could not enter a dwelling without a
warrant even under statutory authority where probable cause existed.’ The principle that government officials cannot
coerce entry into peoples’ houses without a search warrant or applicability of
an established exception to the requirement of a search warrant is so well
established that any reasonable officer would know it.” “We conclude that the Warrant Clause must be
complied with. First, none of the
exceptions to the Warrant Clause apply in this situation, including ‘exigent
circumstances coupled with probable cause,’ because there is, by definition,
time enough to apply to a magistrate for an ex parte removal order. See
State v. Hatter, 342N.W.2d 851, 855 (Iowa 1983)
(holding the exigent circumstances exception to the Warrant Clause only applies
when ‘an immediate major crisis in the performance of duty afforded neither
time nor opportunity to apply to a magistrate.’). Second, as noted by the Second Circuit, ‘[I]n
context of a seizure of a child by the State during an abuse investigation . .
. a court order is the equivalent of a warrant.’ Tenenbaum
v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 602 (2nd Cir. 1999). F.K. v.Iowa district Court forPolk County,Id.”
Another recent 9th Circuit case
also held that there is no exception to the warrant requirement for social
workers in the context of a child abuse investigation. ‘The [California]
regulations they cite require social workers to respond to various contacts in
various ways. But none of the
regulations cited say that the social worker may force her way into a home
without a search warrant in the absence of any emergency.’ Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999)
Calabretta also cites various cases form other jurisdictions for its
conclusion. Good v. Dauphin County Social Servs., 891 F.2d 1087 (3rd
Cir. 1989) held that a social worker and police officer were not
entitled to qualified immunity for insisting on entering her house against the
mother’s will to examine her child for bruises.
Good holds that a search
warrant or exigent circumstances, such as a need to protect a child against
imminent danger of serious bodily injury, was necessary for an entry without consent,
and the anonymous tip claiming bruises was in the case insufficient to
establish special exigency.
The 9th Circuit further opined
in Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th
Cir. 2000), that ‘[b]ecause the swing of every pendulum brings with it
potential adverse consequences, it is important to emphasize that in the area
of child abuse, as with the investigation and prosecution of all crimes, the
state is constrained by the substantive and procedural guarantees of the
Constitution. The fact that the
suspected crime may be heinous – whether it involves children or adults – does
not provide cause for the state to ignore the rights of the accused or any
other parties. Otherwise, serious
injustices may result. In cases of
alleged child abuse, governmental failure to abide by constitutional
constraints may have deleterious long-term consequences for the child and,
indeed, for the entire family.
Ill-considered and improper governmental action may create significant
injury where no problem of any kind previously existed.’Id. at 1130-1131.”
This was the case involving DCF in Connecticut. Many of their policies are unlawful and
contradictory to the Constitution. DCF
has unlawful polices giving workers permission to coerce, intimidate and to
threatened innocent families with governmental intrusion and oppression with
police presences to squelch and put down any citizen who asserts their 4th
Amendment rights by not allowing an unlawful investigation to take place in
their private home when no imminent danger is present.
DCF is the “moving force” behind the on-going
violations of federal law and violations of the Constitution. This idea of not complying with the 4th
and 14th Amendments is so impregnated in their statutes, policies,
practices and customs. It affects all
and what they do. DCF takes on the
persona of the feeling of exaggerated power over parents and that they are
totally immune. Further, that they can
do basically do anything they want including engaging in deception,
misrepresentation of the facts and lying to the judge. This happens thousands of times every day in
the United States
where the end justifies the mean even if it is unlawful, illegal and
We can tell you stories for hours
where CPS employees committed criminal acts and were prosecuted and went to
jail and/or were sued for civil rights violations. CPS workers have lied in reports and court
documents, asked others to lie, and kidnapped children without court orders. They even have crossed state lines impersonating
police, kidnapping children and then were prosecuted for their actions. There are also a number of documented cases where
the case worker killed the child.
It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect
and even killed at the hands of Child Protective Services. The following statistics represent the number
of cases per 100,000 children in the United States and includes DCF in Connecticut. This information is from The National Center
on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) inWashington.
Perpetrators of Maltreatment
Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the
hands of the very agencies that are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at
the hands of parents per 100,000 children.
CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse and kills more
children then parents in the United
If the citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they
hold parents too. No judge should ever
put another child in the hands of ANY government agency because CPS nationwide
is guilty of more harm and death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more human rights
violations and deaths of children then the homes from which they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see
that they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when children
are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a bunch of social
AMENDMENT’S IMPACT ON CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATIONS.
The United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit said it best, “The government’s interest in the welfare of
children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse, but also protecting
children’s interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the
lawfully exercised authority of their parents.” Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (1999).
This statement came in a case, which held
that social workers who, in pursuit of a child abuse investigation, invaded a
family home without a warrant violating the Fourth Amendment rights of both
children and parents. Upon remand for
the damages phase of the trial, the social workers, police officers, and
governments that employed them settled this civil rights case for $150,000.00.
Contrary to the assumption of hundreds of social workers,
the Ninth Circuit held that the Fourth Amendment applies just as much to a
child abuse investigation as it does to any criminal or other governmental
investigation. Social workers are not
exempt from the requirements of the Fourth Amendment when they act alone. They are not exempt from its rules if they
are accompanied by a police officer. Police
officers are not exempt from the requirement even if all they do is get the
front door open for the social worker; this would be intimidation, coercion and
threatening. The general rule is that
unreasonable searches and seizures are banned.
But the second part of the rule is the most important in this context. All warrantless searches are presumptively
CONSENT NOT CONSENT?
If a police officer says, “If you don’t
let us in your home we will break down your door” –a parent who then opens the
door has not given free and voluntary consent.
If a social worker says, “if you don’t let me in the home, I will take
your children away” –a parent who then opens the door has not given free and
voluntary consent. If a social worker
says, “I will get a warrant from the judge or I will call the police if you do
not let me in” negate consent. ANY type of communication,
which conveys the idea to the parent that they have no realistic alternative,
but to allow entry negates any claim that the entry was lawfully gained through
the channel of consent. DCF’s policy
clearly tells the social worker that they can threaten parents even if the
parents assert their 4th Amendment rights.
Consent to warrantless entry must be voluntary and not
the result of duress or coercion. Lack
of intelligence, not understanding the right not to consent, or trickery
invalidate voluntary consent. Schneckloth
v. Bustamonte, 412 US
218 (1973). One’s awareness of his
or her right to refuse consent to warrantless entry is relevant to the issue of
voluntariness of alleged content. Lion
Boulos v. Wilson,
834 F. 2d 504 (9th Cir. 1987).
“Consent” that is the product of official intimidation or harassment is
not consent at all. Citizens do not
forfeit their constitutional rights when they are coerced to comply with a
request that they would prefer to refuse.
v. Bostick, 501 US
429 (1991). Coercive or intimidating
behavior supports a reasonable belief that compliance is compelled. Cassady v. Tackett, 938 F. 2d (6th
Cir. 1991). Coercion can be mental
as well as physical. Blackburn
PROBABLE CAUSE & EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES
The Fourth Amendment does not put a
barrier in the way of a social worker who has reliable evidence that a child is
in imminent danger. For example, if a
hot line call comes in and says, “My name is Mildred Smith, here is my address
and phone number. I was visiting my
grandchildren this morning and I discovered that one of my grandchildren,
Johnny, age 5, is being locked in his bedroom without food for days at a time,
and he looked pale and weak to me” – the social worker certainly has evidence
of exigent circumstances and is only one step away from having probable cause.
Since the report has been received over
the telephone, it is possible that the tipster is an imposter and not the
child’s grandmother. A quick
verification of the relationship can be made in a variety of ways and once
verified, the informant, would satisfy the legal test of reliability, which is
necessary to establish probable cause.
Anonymous phone calls fail the second part of the two-prong requirement
of “exigent circumstances” and “probable cause” for a warrant or order. Anonymous phone calls cannot stand the test
of probable cause as defined within the 14th Amendment and would
fail in court on appeal. The social
worker(s) would lose their qualified immunity for their deprivation of rights
and can be sued. Many social workers and
Child Protection Services (“CPS”) lose their cases in court because their entry
into homes was in violation of the parents civil rights because the evidence in
their possession did not satisfy the standard of probable cause.
It is not enough to have information that
the children are in some form of serious danger. The evidence must also pass a test of
reliability that our justice system calls probable cause. In H.R.
v. State Department of Human Resources, 612 So.2d 477 (Ala. Ct. App. 1992);
the court held that an anonymous tip standing alone never amounts to probable
cause. The Calabretta court held the
same thing, as have numerous other decisions, which have faced the issue
directly. The Fourth Amendment itself
spells out the evidence required for a warrant or entry order. No warrant shall be issued but on probable
cause. The United States Supreme Court
has held that courts may not use a different standard other than probable cause
for the issuance of such orders. Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987). If a court issues a warrant based on an
uncorroborated anonymous tip, the warrant will not survive a judicial challenge
in the higher courts. Anonymous tips are
never probable cause.
Children are not well served if they are
subjected to investigations base on false allegations. Little children can be traumatized by
investigations in ways that are unintended by the social worker. However, to a small child all they know is
that a strange adult is taking off their clothing while their mother is sobbing
in the next room in the presence of an armed police officer. This does not seem to a child to be a proper
invasion of their person –quite different, for example, from an examination by
a doctor when their mother is present and cooperating. The misuse of anonymous tips is well known. Personal vendettas, neighborhood squabbles,
disputes on the Little League field, child custody battles, revenge, nosey
individuals who are attempting to impose their views on others are turned into
maliciously false allegations breathed into a hotline.
“Decency, security and liberty alike demand
that government officials shall be subject to the rules of conduct that are
commands to the citizen. In a government
of laws, existence of government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the
law scrupulously. Our government is the
potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or
ill, it teaches the whole people by example.
Crime is contagious. If the
government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto
himself. It invites anarchy. U.S. v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928),
We the people of the United States
are ruled by law, not by feelings. If
the courts allow states and their agencies to rule by feelings and not law, we
become a nation without law that makes decisions based on subjectivity and
objectivity. CPS has been allowed to
bastardize and emasculate the Constitution and the rights of its citizens to be
governed by the rule of men rather then the rule of law. It is very dangerous when governmental
officials are allowed to have unfettered access to a citizen’s home. It is also very dangerous to allow CPS to
violate the confrontation clause in the 6th Amendment were CPS
hides, conceals and covers up the accuser/witness who makes the report.
It allows those individuals to have a safe haven to file fraudulent
reports and CPS aids and abets in this violation of fundamental rights. All citizens have the right to know their
accuser/witness in order to preserve the sanctity of the rule of law and that
the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
IS IT ILLEGAL AND AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRACTICE FOR CPS
TO REMOVE CHILDREN BECAUSE THEY WITNESS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?
Yes it is illegal and an unconstitutional practice to
remove children which results in punishing the children and the non-offending
parent as stated. In a landmark class
action suit in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, U.S.
District Judge Jack Weinsein ruled on Nicholson
v. Williams, Case No.: 00-cv-2229, the suit challenged the practice of
New York’s City’s Administration for Children’s Services of removing the
children of battered mothers solely because the children saw their mothers
being beaten by husbands or boyfriends.
Judge Weistein ruled that the practice is unconstitutional and he
ordered it stopped.
ARE PARENTS GUILTY OF MALTREATMENT OR EMOTIONAL NEGLECT
IF THE CHILD WITNESSES DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?
according to Judge Weistein’s ruling and to the leading national experts.”
During the trial, several leading national experts
testified on the impact on children of witnessing domestic violence, and the
impact on children of being removed from the non-offending parent. Views of Experts on Effects of Domestic
Violence on Children, and defining witnessing domestic violence by children as
maltreatment or emotional neglect is a mistake.
A “great concern [regarding] how increased awareness of children’s
exposure [to domestic violence] and associated problems is being used. Concerned about the risk adult domestic
violence poses for children, some child protection agencies in the United States
appear to be defining exposure to domestic violence as a form of child…Defining
witnessing as maltreatment is a mistake.
Doing so ignores the fact that large numbers of children in these
studies showed no negative development problems and some showed evidence of
strong coping abilities. Automatically
defining witnessing as maltreatment may also ignore battered mother’s efforts
to develop safe environments for their children and themselves.” Ex. 163 at
EFFECTS OF REMOVALS ON CHILDREN AND NON-OFFENDING PARENT.
Dr. Wolf testified that disruptions in the
parent-child relationship might provoke fear and anxiety in a child and
diminish his or her sense of stability and self. Tr. 565-67.
He described the typical response of a child separated from his parent:
“When a young child is separated from a parent unwillingly, he or she shows
distress … At first, the child is very anxious and protests vigorously and
angrily. Then he falls into a sense of
despair, though still hyper vigilant, looking, waiting, and hoping for her
return …” A child’s sense of time factors into the extent to which a separation
impacts his or her emotional well-being.
Thus, for younger children whose sense of time is less keenly developed,
short periods of parental absence may seem longer than for older children. Tr 565-65. See also Ex. 141b.
For those children who are in homes where
there is domestic violence, disruption of that bond can be even more traumatic
than situations where this is no domestic violence. Dr. Stark (Yale New Haven
asserted that if a child is placed in foster care as a result of domestic
violence in the home, then he or she may view such removal as “a traumatic act
of punishment … and [think] that something that [he] or she has done or failed
to do has caused this separation.” Tr. 1562-63.
Dr. Pelcovitz stated that “taking a child whose greatest fear is
separation from his or her mother and in the name of ‘protecting’ that child
[by] forcing on them, what is in effect, their worst nightmare, … is tantamount
to pouring salt on an open wound.” Ex. 139 at 5.
Another serious implication of removal is
that it introduces children to the foster care system, which can be much more
dangerous and debilitating than the home situation. Dr. Stark testified that foster homes are
rarely screened for the presence of violence, and that the incidence of abuse
and child fatality in foster homes is double that in the general population. Tr 1596; Ex. 122 at 3-4. Children in foster care often fail to receive
adequate medical care. Ex. 122 at
6. Foster care placements can disrupt
the child’s contact with community, school and siblings. Ex. 122 at 8.
HAVE LEGAL STANDING TO SUE CPS FOR THEIR ILLEGAL ABDUCTION FROM THEIR HOME AND
VIOLATING THEIR 4TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS?
they do, children have standing to sue for their removal after they reach the
age of majority. Parents also have legal
standing to sue if CPS violated their 4th and 14th Amendment
rights. Children have a Constitutional
right to live with their parents without government interference. Brokaw
v. Mercer County, 7th Cir. (2000) A child has a constitutionally protected
interest in the companionship and society of his or her parents. Ward
v. San Jose, 9th Cir. (1992)
State employees who withhold a child from her family infringe on the
family’s liberty of familial association.
K.H. through Murphy v. Morgan,
7th Cir. (1990)
The forced separation of parent from
child, even for a short time, represents a serious infringement upon the rights
of both. J.B. v. Washington
county, 10th Cir. (1997)
Parent’s interest is of “the highest order.” And the court recognizes
“the vital importance of curbing overzealous suspicion and intervention on the
part of health care professionals and government officials.” Thomason v. Scan Volunteer Services,
Inc., 8th Cir. (1996)
You must protect you and your child’s
rights. CPS has no legal right to enter
your home or speak to you and your child when there in no imminent danger
present. Know your choices; you can
refuse to speak to any government official whether it is the police or CPS as
long as there is an open criminal investigation. They will tell you that what they are
involved in is a civil matter not a criminal matter. Don’t you believe it. There is nothing civil about allegations of
child abuse or neglect. It is a criminal
matter disguised as a civil matter.
Police do not get involved in civil matters if it truly is one. You will regret letting them in your home and
speaking with them like the thousands of other parents who have gone through
this. When you ask a friend, family
member or someone at work what to do, they will tell you if you agree to
services, CPS will leave you alone or you can get your kids back. That is an incorrect assumption.
Refusing them entry is NOT hindering an
investigation, it is a Fourth Amendment protection. CPS or the juvenile judge cannot abrogate
that right as long as your children are not in imminent danger. Tell them to go packing. DO NOT
sign anything, it will come back to be used against you in any possible
kangaroo trial. Your children’s records
are protected by FERPA and HIPAA regarding your children’s educational and
medical records. They need a lawful
warrant like the police under the “warrant clause” to seize any records. If your child’s school records contain
medical records, then HIPAA also applies.
When the school or doctor sends records to CPS or allows them to view
them without your permission, both the sender and receiver violated the
law. You need to file a HIPAA complaint
on the sender and the receiver. (See PDF
version http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/howtofileprivacy.pdf and a Microsoft Word version http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/howtofileprivacy.doc.)
Remember, you only have 180 days from the time you found out about
it. Tell them they need a lawful warrant
to make you do anything. CPS has no
power; do not agree to a drug screen or a psychological evaluation.
SCHOOLS ARE REQUIRED TO OFFER
SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES TO
Services Reinstated for Homeschoolers, March
After a legal letter “tug-of-war,” the
Illinois Department of Education has finally relented. Their General Counsel
contacted the Home School Legal Defense Association and has apologized for
their erroneous memorandum of 2005 that effectively cut off special needs
services to homeschoolers throughout the state.
In December of 2005, several Illinoismember families contacted HSLDA
because their special education services with their local public schools had
been suddenly terminated.
One member family, the Blunts, had received a letter
from the Director of Special Education of their local school district. The
letter stated that according to the federal Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) of 2004, the school district was no longer required to
offer special education services to any private school that was not state
After having worked with congressional staff on the
Education and Workforce Committee and with the legal counsel of the U.S.
Department of Education for the last 10 years on this issue, the HSLDA legal
staff knew that the letter the family received contained erroneous information.
U.S. Department of Education officials have assured us that in states where
homeschools are considered private schools, like Illinois, these private school children
taught at home have access to special needs educational support through the
HSLDA Senior Counsel Chris Klicka drafted a letter on
behalf of the Blunts explaining the school district’s error. He informed school
officials that special needs services must be restored to the Blunt family’s
Shortly after sending the letter, HSLDA received a
letter from the school district’s attorney. The letter stated that the 2005
memorandum in question had been drafted by the Illinois State Department of
Education’s Assistant Superintendent as “interim guidance” for Illinois public schools.
The memorandum defined eligibility based on whether the student was enrolled in
a “state recognized private school.”
The memorandum was inaccurate and contradicted federal
The issue of whether home-educated students are
eligible to receive special education services had already been acknowledged at
a federal level. In federal reports regarding issues surrounding those eligible
for IDEA, the Federal Director of Special Education in a letter procured by
determination of whether a home education arrangement constitutes private
school placement must be made on the basis of state law. Thus, if home
education constitutes enrollment in a private school under state law, then the
requirements of Regs. 300.403 and 300.452 apply when deciding whether to
provide special education or related services to a child with disabilities who
is being educated at home.”
The above report makes it crystal clear that if the
state recognizes a home education program as a private school in that state,
then those home-educated students are eligible for the services.
HSLDA Attorney Chris Klicka sent a letter to the
author of the 2005 memorandum explaining that the highest court in Illinois defines home
education programs as private schools, and therefore, in Illinois, home-educated students are
eligible for special education services. The Illinois Supreme Court held that
no accreditation is necessary. Klicka’s letter also specifically demanded a
response within 10 days and that the memorandum be corrected.
Within the requested time, Klicka received a phone
call from the General Counsel and a special director Illinois Department of
Education. Somewhat apologetic, they admitted their error, assuring him that
they will revise their memorandum soon by removing the offensive language
requiring a private school to be “state recognized” before its
students could be eligible for special education services.
Illinoisspecial education home school students will once
again be able to receive needed educational services.
FEDERAL RULING UPHOLDS THAT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS CAN’T ACT IN THE CHILD
BEST INTEREST WHEN IT COMES TO SPECIAL-NEEDS CHILDREN.
Under the Individuals with
Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”) it DOES NOT compell
the state or boards of educations to test every child, it’s just a funding
statute. The only thing the state or board of education in this
country can do is OFFER the testing and services and make it
available to home school students … that’s it. Parents have the
absolute choice and legal option to refuse any testing or services that the
state has to offer especially if it is funded. Parents can
refuse federally funded services and seek out private educators and
testing when it comes to the child educational needs..
The boards of educations
in the state of Connecticut and the other 49 states have misapplied and
abused IDEA and harmed children and families by forcing home school
children to be tested when they are not required to do so and acting outside
the statute. When parents refused testing because board of
educations lack jurisdiction, they would call child protection and file a false
report. Follow the money trail, the boards of educations get funding by
every label they slap on a child, just like child protection.
In short, when a parent
desides to home school or private school their children, the state, DCF and the
school system lacks all jurisdition and control of the child because the
parent acts in the best interest of the child not the government. The
state can’t act in the child’s best interest without the requsite proof of
parental unfitness. A child’s educational needs has nothing to do with
serious abuse and neglect and the courts and CPS/DCF lack jurisdiction.
This is the big lie that
child protection is perpetrating across this country. The services that
are all federally funded that CPS/DCF gets paid for are to be offered to
parents, not forced down parents throats. Parents ultimately make the
decision on what services, if any, parents feel what is in the best
interest of the child and the entire family, not child protection and their
untrained government workers. CPS/DCF workers think they are doing
something great when in reality they are harming the most inocent among
us. Only parents know what’s in the best interest of their child, not the
court or the state.
The following ruling
upholds the parent’s right to reject and refuse services from CPS/DCF, the board
of education or any other agency. Thomas M. Dutkiewicz
Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Homeschoolers,March 2, 2006
A federal appeals court ruled unanimously in favor of
Home School Legal Defense Association (“HSLDA”) members Ron and
Joann Fitzgerald on Wednesday and held that school districts may not force
homeschooled children to submit to special-needs evaluations against their
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit, which includes Missouri
where the Fitzgeralds reside, held that the federal Individuals with
Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”) does not give public
schools jurisdiction over homeschooled children who may have special needs.
“Where a home-schooled child’s parents refuse consent [for an evaluation],
privately educate the child, and expressly waive all benefits under the IDEA,
an evaluation would have no purpose. . . . [A] district may not force an
evaluation under the circumstances in this case.”
As reported in the January/February 2005
Court Report, HSLDA has been defending the Fitzgerald family’s right to
privacy for almost three years. The Fitzgeralds had withdrawn their son, Sean*,
from public school after years of disagreement with the school over the
provision of special education services. When they started homeschooling Sean,
they had his special needs privately evaluated, and they decided to obtain
private special education services for him.
The school district, however, demanded that the
parents permit a public school evaluation for special needs, even though it admitted
that it could not force the family to accept any actual services from the
public school. An administrative panel agreed with the school district and
ordered the family to submit to the evaluation. HSLDA appealed to the federal
district court, which agreed with the school district. The Eighth Circuit
reversed these decisions.
“This victory is going to help homeschooling
families all over the country,” said HSLDA litigation counsel James R.
Mason III, who argued the case in the Eighth Circuit. “The court
recognized that homeschooling parents may provide for the special needs of
their children without undue interference from meddling school officials.”
HSLDA is representing another member family in New Yorkwhere a public
school district seeks to evaluate their child.
* Name changed to protect family’s privacy.
February 2, 2006
Graduates Enlisting in the Military Protected by New Law
There is more good news for homeschool graduates
seeking to enlist in the Armed Services.
An amendment to Section 522 of Senate Bill 1042,
requires the Secretary of Defense to create a uniform policy for recruiting
homeschool graduates for all four branches of the Armed Services. Furthermore, the
new law makes it clear homeschoolers do not have to obtain a GED which
carries the stigma of being a dropout. The bill was signed into law by
President Bush last January.
Although there is no discrimination currently being
practiced through any formal policies in the military against homeschool
graduates, the new law will virtually eliminate the concern that discrimination
could happen in the future. The new law specifies that the uniform policy is
for the purposes of recruitment and enlistment of homeschoolers. Therefore, the
new policy will not discriminate against homeschoolers because the goal is
recruitment and not exclusion.
Homeschool graduates who desire a career with any of
the four Armed Services are currently designated as “preferred
enlistees.” This means that homeschool graduates who enlist in the
military will be treated as if they are Tier I candidates even though their
formal status will remain Tier II. Therefore, homeschoolers will receive the same
educational benefits, cash bonuses, and available positions in the Armed
Services that they would receive if they were Tier I candidates.
HSLDA has been working with the military for several
years to remove discriminatory barriers for homeschool graduates. Beginning in
1998, HSLDA secured a pilot project that lasted six years where homeschoolers
were experimentally categorized as Tier I candidates, which is the same status
as high school graduates from public schools.
Although the program continued until October, 2004, it
was not renewed. HSLDA contacted the Administration and explained our
situation. A meeting was arranged for us with the Assistant Secretary of
Defense and a few other Pentagon officials a month later.
As a result of the meeting in January 2005, the
Department of Defense issued a letter stating that homeschoolers were
considered “preferred enlistees” and that there were no
“practical limits” to the numbers of homeschoolers who could obtain
entrance into the Armed Services. At that point, the Department of Defense, at
the highest levels, began working with HSLDA to resolve every problem at the
local recruitment level with homeschool graduates. Over time, as the new policy
is implemented, local recruiters will be able to properly advise homeschoolers.
As a result of the 1998-2004 pilot project, and the
January 2005 directive from the Department of Defense, thousands of
homeschoolers are serving our country faithfully in the Armed Services.
SURREPTITIOUSLY DRUG TESTING OF PREGNANT WOMEN FOR THE ALLEDGED BENEFIT
OF THEIR FETUSES ARE NOT ONLY MISGUIDED
AS A MATTER OF POLICY, THEY ARE UNLAWFUL.
Fergusonv. City ofCharleston: Social and Legal Contexts (11/1/2000)
v. City of Charleston
On October 4, 2000, the U.S.
Supreme Court heard arguments in Ferguson v. City of Charleston, a
case considering the constitutionality of a governmental policy of
surreptitiously drug testing pregnant women in a South Carolina hospital, which then reported
positive cocaine results to law enforcement officers. Though the legal question
is narrow — whether the Fourth Amendment permits the state, acting without
either a warrant or individualized suspicion, to drug test pregnant women who
seek prenatal care in a public hospital — the case points to broader issues
concerning the right of pregnant women to be treated as fully autonomous under
the past several years, the state has increasingly intruded into the lives of
pregnant women, policing their conduct in the name of protecting fetuses.
Pregnant women have been forced to undergo unwanted cesareans; they’ve been
ordered to have their cervixes sewn up to prevent miscarriage; they’ve been
incarcerated for consuming alcohol; and they’ve been detained, as in the case
of one young woman, simply because she “lack[ed] motivation or [the]
ability to seek medical care” (V. Kolder, J. Gallagher, and M. Parsons,
“Court-Ordered Obstetrical Interventions,” New England
Journal of Medicine (1987) 316, No. 19: 1195).
in many of these cases the invasive state actions have been rescinded by higher
officials or rejected by the courts. Unfortunately, many of these decisions
came too late to prevent unwarranted suffering and to protect women from being
deprived of their rights.
the Supreme Court rules in Ferguson we
are hopeful that it will recognize that the Constitution protects pregnant
women on an equal basis with all free adults, making it clear that pregnant
women are not wards of the state.
Facts in Ferguson
1989, an interagency group consisting of representatives from the City of
Charleston Police Department, the Charleston County Solicitor’s Office (the
prosecutor), and the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC, a public
hospital in Charleston) developed and implemented the Interagency Policy on
Cocaine Abuse in Pregnancy. Under the policy, MUSC subjected pregnant women to
warrantless searches if they met any one of several criteria, including no or
minimal prenatal care; unexplained preterm labor; birth defects or poor fetal
growth; separation of the placenta from the uterine wall; a history of drug or
alcohol abuse; or intrauterine fetal death.
the early months of the program, women were immediately arrested after they or
their newborns tested positive for cocaine. One woman spent the last three
weeks of her pregnancy in jail. During this time she received prenatal care in
handcuffs and shackles. Authorities arrested another woman soon after she gave
birth; still bleeding and dressed in only a hospital gown, she was handcuffed
and taken to the city jail (Petitioners’ brief in Ferguson, 6,
1990, the prosecutor’s office added an “amnesty” component to the
policy: women testing positive for cocaine were given the “option” of
drug treatment to avoid arrest. If they failed to follow through on treatment
or if they tested positive a second time, however, they were arrested.
October 1994, after the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services began investigating whether the hospital in carrying out the
policy had violated the civil rights of its African American patients, MUSC
dropped its program. In total, 30 women were arrested under the policy; 29 were
Against Policing Pregnancy
women who use drugs during pregnancy deters them from seeking critical prenatal
care and entering drug treatment programs. If the goal is to protect fetuses
and to help women become drug-free mothers, punitive measures have the opposite
studies done in hospitals and health-care centers in San Diego, Chicago, and
Detroit, for example, indicate that when pregnant women fear that they will be
prosecuted for their drug use, they do not seek prenatal care and will even choose
to deliver their babies at home (D. Roberts, Killing the Black Body, NY:
Pantheon Books (1997), 192). Indeed, MUSC’s policy appears to have driven
drug-using women out of the health-care system in that region, isolating them
in their drug use rather than helping them have healthy pregnancies and healthy
babies (L.G. Tribble et al., Analysis of a Hospital Maternal Cocaine
Testing Policy: In Association with Prenatal Care Utilization
punitive approach to drug use during pregnancy also stops women from
participating in drug-treatment programs. In another high-profile South
Carolina case, involving the Easely Baptist Medical Center, a young woman,
Cornelia Whitner, was arrested for “endangering the life of her unborn
child” and sentenced to eight years in prison after she gave birth to a
healthy baby boy whose urine, nonetheless, tested positive for cocaine.
Following the publicity surrounding this case, two drug-treatment programs in Columbia, SC,
reported a precipitous drop in the number of pregnant women entering their
facilities. One clinic found that between 1996 and 1997, it admitted 80 percent
fewer pregnant women than it had a year earlier; the other saw 54 percent fewer
pregnant women during the same time period (L. Paltrow, “Pregnant Drug
Users, Fetal Persons, and the Threat to Roe v. Wade, Albany Law
Review (1999) 62, No. 999: n.147).
that criminalizing maternal drug use is bad medicine and bad public policy,
with potentially tragic consequences for pregnant women, their fetuses, and
their families, numerous medical and public-health organizations have denounced
the practice. These include the American Medical Association, the American
Academy of Pediatrics, the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, the
American Medical Women’s Association, the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, the American Public Health Association, the American Nurses
Association, the American Society on Addiction Medicine, the National Council
on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, the National Association of Social Workers,
and the March of Dimes, among other prominent groups.
women enjoy the same constitutional rights as other competent adults.
women have as great a right to privacy, bodily integrity, and autonomy as other
free adults. This means that the state cannot subject women to warrantless,
suspicionless, nonconsensual searches just because they are pregnant. MUSC’s
drug testing policy did just that.
if the tides were turned, and the state began testing men of child-bearing age
for illegal drug use because they did not have annual physicals or had a
history of substance abuse. Imagine further that officials arrest and take into
custody in the name of their unborn children those men with positive toxicology
reports. Given that recent studies have linked male drug use to sperm
abnormalities that can cause birth defects, this is not such a far-fetched
scenario (I. Pollard, “Substance Abuse and Parenthood: Biological
Mechanisms-Bioethical Challenges,” Women and Health (2000)
30, No. 3: 1-24). It is doubtful, however, that law enforcement working in
tandem with medical providers would consider implementing such a practice. And
surely if they did, the courts would rightfully hold such policies
unconstitutional. The rules, however, seem to change when it comes to pregnant
women, though the Constitution does not.
is hard to imagine subjecting fathers or soon-to-be fathers to the same level
of state interference in their private lives as we do pregnant women. We do not
strip fathers of their constitutional rights, even when their behavior may have
deleterious effects on their offspring. We do not, for example, arrest fathers
and remove them from their families if they smoke two packs of cigarettes a day
around their children and their pregnant wives, though there is ample evidence
that exposure — even prenatal exposure — to second-hand smoke can have
serious long-term health effects.
women, on the other hand, have been arrested or threatened with arrest for
consuming not just illegal substances, such as cocaine, but legal substances as
well. There are at least two recent incidents of state authorities arresting
women for consuming alcohol during pregnancy: one in South Carolina, the other in Wyoming (Paltrow, 1042;
R. Roth, Making Women Pay: The Hidden Costs of Fetal Rights, Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press (2000), 150). And in case the message to pregnant
women was not clear, officials in the South Carolina Department of Alcohol and
Other Drug Abuse Services recently distributed literature advising pregnant
women that “it’s . . . a crime in South Carolina” to “smoke,
drink . . . or engage in other activities that risk harming” the fetus.
Though in May of 2000, the state attorney general hastily recalled the pamphlet
and issued a statement that only pregnant women who use illegal drugs would be
prosecuted, the official responsible for redrafting the recalled material has
indicated that he “has not decided whether to make reference to nicotine
or alcohol abuse as potentially criminal” in the rewritten document
(American Civil Liberties Union amicus brief in Ferguson, 18).
and other state policies aimed at policing pregnant women assume that pregnant
women are different from other competent adults, that in becoming pregnant,
women somehow become wards of the state or forfeit their constitutional rights.
The Constitution, however, protects all of us, pregnant women included.
drug use crosses all racial and class lines, poor women of color have
overwhelmingly been the ones targeted and arrested for using drugs while
own records indicate that among its pregnant patients equal percentages of
white and African American women consumed illegal drugs (Roberts, 172).
However, of the 30 women arrested under the interagency drug-testing policy, 29
were African American (Petitioners’ brief in Ferguson, 13). These
numbers are in line with national statistics. In a 1990 study published in
the New England Journal of Medicine, for example, researchers
found that 15.4 percent of white women and 14.1 percent of African American
women used drugs during pregnancy. African American women, however, were 10
times more likely than white women to be reported to authorities (I. Chasnoff,
H. Landress, and M. Barrett, “Prevalence of Illicit Drug or Alcohol Use
During Pregnancy and Discrepancies in Mandatory Reporting in Pinellas County,
Florida,” New England Journal of Medicine (1990) 322, No.
are many factors contributing to these discrepancies, with race and class
prejudices playing a major role in all of them. Because poor women of color are
far more likely to give birth at public institutions and have more contact with
state agencies, their drug use is far more likely than that of middle-class
white women to be detected and reported.
addition, a number of the criteria used to trigger testing under the MUSC
policy had little to do with drug use per se and had much more to do with
poverty. For example, the hospital tested women who received little or no
prenatal care. Yet, with fewer resources and less connection to the medical
community than middle-class women, poor women are more likely to delay seeking
prenatal care until relatively late in pregnancy or to obtain no prenatal care
at all. Inadequate prenatal care can, in turn, result in unexplained preterm
labor, birth defects or poor fetal growth, separation of the placenta from the
uterine wall, or intrauterine fetal death, all conditions that the MUSC policy
also identified as grounds for testing pregnant patients.
a drug-testing policy that targets crack cocaine, a drug more prevalent among
inner-city communities of color, rather than other substances like
methamphetamines, a drug used more often by white rural and suburban women,
will unfairly result in the arrests of women of color (Roberts, 177). The
singling out of cocaine is not justified on medical grounds. Studies on drug
use during pregnancy consistently show that the abuse of other substances, both
legal and illegal, can harm fetal development as much as or more than cocaine
(American Medical Association amicus brief in Ferguson, 15,
16; Public Health Association et al., amicus brief in Ferguson, 29).
practice, therefore, MUSC’s policy was a form of racial profiling. By both
design and implementation, the policy led inevitably to the identification and
punishment of drug use by pregnant, low-income women of color, leaving other
pregnant users free of the threat of warrantless, suspicionless, nonconsensual
pregnant women for drug use sets the state on a slippery slope. What’s to stop
the state from arresting women for drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes while
pregnant? Where will we draw the line?
recent years, pregnant women have been forced to undergo an array of medical
procedures without their consent and have been imprisoned for alcohol use,
unruliness, and mental illness, all in the name of protecting fetal health.
Below are a few examples:
- In Massachusetts, a lower court ordered a
pregnant woman’s cervix sewn up against her will to prevent a possible
miscarriage. The woman was ultimately spared from undergoing the procedure
by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, which vacated the lower court’s
order because it had not adequately considered the woman’s constitutional
right to privacy (See Taft v. Taft, 446 N.E. 2d 395, 396,
397 (Mass. 1983)).
- In Illinois, a pregnant woman was advised
that, because of an insufficient flow of oxygen to the fetus, the fetus
could be born dead or severely retarded if she did not immediately undergo
a cesarean. When the woman opposed the surgery on religious grounds, the
office of the State’s Attorney sought a court order compelling her to
submit to the cesarean. Rejecting the state’s argument, the appellate
court held that a woman’s “right to refuse invasive medical
treatment, derived from her rights to privacy, bodily integrity, and
religious liberty, is not diminished during pregnancy.” The woman
ultimately gave birth by vaginal delivery to a normal, healthy — though
somewhat underweight — baby boy (In re Baby Doe, 632 N.E.2d
332, 329 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994)).
- In Washington, DC,
a young pregnant woman, severely ill with cancer, several times mouthed
the words “I don’t want it done” when told that a court had
ordered her to undergo a cesarean and that she likely would not survive
the operation. The cesarean was nonetheless performed; the baby died
within a few hours of birth; and the woman died two days later. An appellate
court ultimately reversed the order that authorized the involuntary
surgery, but not in time to help the woman or her family (In re A.C., 573
A.2d 1235, 1241 (D.C. 1990)).
- In Wyoming, officials arrested a pregnant
woman because of alcohol use and charged her with felony child abuse. She
spent time in jail before a judge dismissed the charge (Roth, 150).
- In Wisconsin, officials held a pregnant
sixteen-year-old in secure detention for the sake of fetal development
because the young woman tended “to be on the run” and to
“lack motivation or ability to seek medical care” (
Kolder, et al., 1192, 1195).
- In California, a deputy district attorney,
concerned about a pregnant woman’s mental state but lacking sufficient
evidence to have her committed for psychiatric treatment, instead obtained
a juvenile court order declaring her fetus a dependent child of the state
and detaining the woman pending birth. An appellate court ultimately held
that the district attorney had impermissibly manipulated the juvenile laws
to detain the pregnant woman and released her when she was approximately
seven months pregnant (In re Steven S., 126 Cal. App. 3d 23,
27, 30-31 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981)).
actions to police pregnant women for the alleged benefit of their fetuses are
not only misguided as a matter of policy, they are unlawful.
In Ferguson, the
question is whether the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution permits a public
hospital to subject women to drug testing, the results of which are reported to
the police, without a warrant, without individualized suspicion, and without
the woman’s consent. The answer is no.
government may dispense with the protections normally demanded under the Fourth
Amendment prior to a search — securing a warrant or having an individualized
suspicion of criminal conduct — only if the search falls within a
“special needs” exception. To satisfy that exception, the
governmental policy must be unrelated to law enforcement, and the person being
searched must have a diminished expectation of privacy.
this case, however, law enforcement officials were intimately involved in
creating and implementing MUSC’s policy: women who tested positive for cocaine
were arrested and prosecuted, or threatened with these consequences, in case
the notion that women have a diminished expectation of privacy when they are
pregnant is at odds with our strong constitutional tradition of respecting
pregnant women’s privacy rights. Nothing in U.S. law permits the state to step
in to ensure that women “behave” themselves during pregnancy. The
Constitution does not permit such an assault on women’s privacy and
the question before the U.S. Supreme Court in Ferguson concerns the Fourth
Amendment, the restraints imposed on pregnant women in this and other contexts,
all in the purported interest of the fetus, raise additional legal concerns.
While both men and women engage in conduct that may be harmful to a fetus, only
women — by virtue of their pregnancies — are targeted for punitive measures.
By singling out women in this manner, the state discriminates against them,
potentially violating both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution and various civil rights laws. By the same token,
policies, like MUSC’s, that target women of color may violate constitutional
and statutory prohibitions against race discrimination. Finally, efforts by the
state to protect the fetus by confining women — whether to a hospital or jail
– or by compelling medical treatment — whether the woman is strapped to a
gurney for a forced cesarean section, tied into stirrups for a pelvic exam, or
involuntarily hospitalized during delivery — violate the guarantee of liberty
of the Due Process Clause of the Federal Constitution.
CENTRAL REGISTRY RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Thursday, November 3, 2005 · Last updated 6:23 p.m. PT
Court rejects Mo. child abuse registry
By DAVID A.
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- A judge declared Missouri's child abuse
registry unconstitutional Thursday, ruling that suspected offenders deserved a court-like
hearing before being listed.
is kept secret from the general public, but is used by child care providers and
others to screen current and potential employees.
Richard Callahan concluded that people's reputations and professional careers
were damaged when their names were placed in the child abuse registry before a
of Social Services said it was likely to appeal the case to the Missouri
Supreme Court. Callahan suspended the
effect of his judgment pending an appeal.
ruling stemmed from a 2002 instance of alleged sexual abuse at the Faith House
child care facility in St. Louis.
Although they were not accused of abuse themselves, founder Mildred Jamison and
nurse Betty Dotson were listed on the child abuse registry based on probable
cause of neglect.
was upheld by the Department of Social Services' Child Abuse and Neglect Review
Board, which holds only informal hearings, not ones following judicial
procedures. Decisions by the review panel can be appealed to a judge, but the
listing occurred before that happened.
it violated constitutional due-process rights to list people on the registry
prior to holding a hearing before a neutral decision-maker in which witnesses
are under oath, can be cross-examined and can be compelled to testify.
He also said
the hearings must use a tougher-to-prove criterion of "preponderance of
the evidence" instead of "probable cause" - a change already
made by a 2004 law.
Callahan's ruling was "wonderful, because many people don't know what the
due process is. Their names go on, and they don't know about the appeals
process or any of that."
not be reached for comment.
SUPREME COURT RULED
THAT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
MUST HAVE CONSENT OF
BOTH PARENTS TO ENTER HOME
Police and DCF must have the consent of both parents or parties to
enter a home. If one parent or party present denies entry, the
police and DCF can’t enter based on one consenting party but must yield to the
non-consenting party. All occupants must give consent.
Thomas Dutkiewicz, President, Connecticut DCF Watch
High Court Trims Police Power
to Search Homes
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 23, 2006;
The Supreme Court narrowed police search
powers yesterday, ruling that officers must have a warrant to look for evidence
in a couple’s home unless both partners present agree to let them in.
to 3 decision sparked a sharp exchange among the justices. The
majority portrayed the decision as striking a blow for privacy rights and
gender equality; dissenters said it could undermine police efforts against
domestic violence, the victims of which are often women.
The ruling upholds a 2004 decision of the
Georgia Supreme Court but still makes a significant change in the law
nationwide, because most other lower federal and state courts had previously
said that police could search with the consent of one of two adults living
Now, officers must first ask a judicial
officer for a warrant in such cases. Quarrels between husbands and wives, or
boyfriends and girlfriends, keep police busy around the country; in the
District, almost half of the 39,000 violent crime calls officers answered in
2000 involved alleged domestic violence.
Justice David H. Souter’s majority opinion
said that the consent of one partner is not enough, because of “widely
shared social expectations” that adults living together each have veto
power over who can come into their shared living space. That makes a
warrantless search based on only one partner’s consent “unreasonable”
and, therefore, unconstitutional.
“[T]here is no common understanding
that one co-tenant generally has a right or authority to prevail over the
express wishes of another, whether the issue is the color of the curtains or
invitations to outsiders,” Souter wrote.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing
his first dissent since joining the court in October, said the ruling’s
“cost” would be “great,” especially in domestic dispute
Roberts wrote that the ruling made no
sense, given that the court had previously said it is constitutional for police
to enter a house with the permission of one partner when the other is asleep or
absent. Those rulings were unchanged by yesterday’s decision.
Just by agreeing to live with someone
else, a co-tenant has surrendered a good deal of the privacy that the
Constitution’s Fourth Amendment was designed to protect, Roberts noted.
“The majority’s rule apparently forbids
police from entering to assist with a domestic dispute if the abuser whose
behavior prompted the request for police assistance objects,” he wrote.
But Souter called that argument a
“red herring,” saying that the police would still have legal
authority to enter homes where one partner was truly in danger.
“[T]his case has no bearing on the
capacity of the police to protect domestic victims,” Souter wrote.
“No question has been raised, or reasonably could be, about the authority
of the police to enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence;
so long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists.”
Souter said Roberts was guilty of
declaring that “the centuries of special protection for the privacy of the
home are over.”
Souter’s opinion was joined by Justices
John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G.
Breyer backed Souter with a separate
opinion noting that his decisive fifth vote was cast on the understanding that
Souter’s analysis applies to cases such as this one, Georgia v. Randolph
, No. 04-1607, in which the police were searching for evidence of a crime,
rather than intervening in a violent dispute.
“[T]oday’s decision will not
adversely affect ordinary law enforcement practices,” Breyer wrote.
The case arose out of a 2001 quarrel over
child custody at the home of Janet and Scott Randolph in Americus, Ga.
When officers arrived, she told them where they could find his cocaine. An
officer asked Scott Randolph for permission to search the house. He refused,
but Janet Randolph said yes — and led them to a straw covered in cocaine
crystals. Scott Randolph was arrested and indicted on charges of cocaine
Georgia’s Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the
evidence should be suppressed because it was gathered without a warrant.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence
Thomas also dissented. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. did not vote because he was
not yet on the court in November, when the case was argued.
The main battle between Souter and Roberts
was accompanied by a skirmish between Stevens and Scalia, who used the case as
an opportunity to make points in the court’s long-running dispute over Scalia’s
view that the Constitution should be interpreted in light of the Framers’
In a brief concurring opinion, Stevens
noted that the court’s ruling was based on the concept that neither a husband
nor a wife is “master” of the house in the eyes of the law. But at
the time the Bill of Rights was drafted, he wrote, only a husband’s consent or
objection would have been taken into account.
Thus, he wrote, “this case
illustrates why even the most dedicated adherent to an approach . . . that
places primary reliance on a search for original understanding would recognize
the relevance of changes in our society.”
Scalia fired back at “Justice
Stevens’ ‘attempted critique’ of originalism,’ ” arguing that the court’s
ruling would probably not benefit women.
“Given the usual patterns of domestic
violence,” he noted, “how often can police be expected to encounter
the situation in which a man urges them to enter the home while a woman
simultaneously demands they stay out?”
© 2006 The Washington Post
HAIR FOLLICLE DRUG TESTING RULED
DEBORAH M., Petitioner,
v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; DARYL W., Real Party
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE
128 Cal. App. 4th 1181;
27 Cal. Rptr. 3d 757; 2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 681; 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Service
3617; 2005 Daily Journal DAR 4927
April 29, 2005, Filed
HISTORY: [***1] Proceedings in
prohibition after superior court order compelling hair follicle drug test. Superior Court of San Diego
County, No. ED24070, Alan Clements, Judge.
POSTURE: Petitioner mother sought a writ of prohibition, challenging
an order of respondent, the Superior
San Diego County
(California), that compelled her to submit to a hair follicle drug
test. The mother had sought to have her child support amended. In response,
real party in interest father had filed an order to show cause seeking a change
in custody and visitation, as well as an order for drug testing.
At issue was whether Cal. Fam. Code §
3041.5(a) permitted courts in custody and visitation proceedings to order
drug testing by means of a hair follicle test of a parent whom the trial court
had determined engaged in habitual, frequent, or continual illegal use of
controlled substances. In granting a writ of prohibition, the court held that
§ 3041.5(a) required any court-ordered
drug testing to conform to federal drug testing procedures and standards, and
at present those federal standards only allowed for urine tests. The language
of § 3041.5(a) and its statutory history demonstrated
that only urine tests were allowed because the language “least intrusive
method of testing” in § 3041.5(a)
did not show an intent by the legislature to allow any type of available
testing. To pass constitutional muster, the intrusiveness of the testing had to
be weighed, along with an individual’s legitimate expectation of privacy, the
nature and immediacy of the government concern at issue, and the efficacy of
drug testing in meeting that concern. Thus, the only reasonable interpretation
of the clause was that if and when additional tests were permitted, the least
intrusive method had to be used.
OUTCOME: The court issued a writ of
prohibition, directing the trial court to vacate its order compelling a hair
follicle drug test.
SUMMARY OF FAMILY
RIGHTS (FAMILY ASSOCIATION)
The state may not interfere in child
rearing decisions when a fit parent is available. Troxel
v. Granville, 530 U.S.
A child has a constitutionally protected
interest in the companionship and society of his or her parent. Ward
v. San Jose (9th
Children have standing to sue for their
removal after they reach the age of majority.
Children have a constitutional right to live with their parents without
government interference. Brokaw v. Mercer County
(7th Cir. 2000)
The private, fundamental liberty interest
involved in retaining custody of one’s child and the integrity of one’s family
is of the greatest importance. Weller v. Dept. of Social Services for Baltimore (4th
A state employee who withholds a child
from her family may infringe on the family’s liberty of familial
association. Social workers can not
deliberately remove children from their parents and place them with foster
caregivers when the officials reasonably should have known such an action would
cause harm to the child’s mental or physical health. K.H.
through Murphy v. Morgan (7th Cir. 1990)
The forced separation of parent from
child, even for a short time (in this case 18 hours); represent a serious
infringement upon the rights of both. J.B. v. Washington County
(10th Cir. 1997)
Absent extraordinary circumstances, a
parent has a liberty interest in familial association and privacy that cannot
be violated without adequate pre-deprivation procedures. Malik
v. Arapahoe Cty. Dept. of Social Services (10 Cir. 1999)
Parent interest is of “the highest order,”
and the court recognizes “the vital importance of curbing overzealous suspicion
and intervention on the part of health care professionals and government
officials.” Thomason v. Scan Volunteer Services, Inc. (8th Cir. 1996)
Police officers and social workers are not
immune from coercing or forcing entry into a person’s home without a search
warrant. Calabretta v. Floyd (9th Cir. 1999)
The mere possibility of danger does not
constitute an emergency or exigent circumstance that would justify a forced
warrantless entry and a warrantless seizure of a child. Hurlman
v. Rice (2nd Cir. 1991)
A police officer and a social worker may
not conduct a warrantless search or seizure in a suspected child abuse case
absent exigent circumstances. Defendants
must have reason to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy and that
the intrusion is reasonable necessary to alleviate the threat. Searches and seizures in investigation of a
child neglect or child abuse case at a home are governed by the same principles
as other searches and seizures at a home.
Good v. Dauphin County
Social Services (3rd Cir. 1989)
The Fourth Amendment protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures extends beyond criminal investigations and
includes conduct by social workers in the context of a child neglect/abuse
investigation. Lenz v. Winburn (11th Cir. 1995)
The protection offered by the Fourth
Amendment and by our laws does not exhaust itself once a warrant is
obtained. The concern for the privacy,
the safety, and the property of our citizens continues and is reflected in
knock and announce requirements. United
States v. Becker, 929 F.2d 9th Cir.1991)
Making false statements to obtain a
warrant, when the false statements were necessary to the finding of probable
cause on which the warrant was based, violates the Fourth Amendment’s warrant
requirement. The Warrant Clause
contemplates that the warrant applicant be truthful: “no warrant shall issue,
but on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.” Deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard
for the truth violates the Warrant Clause.
An officer who obtains a warrant through material false statements which
result in an unconstitutional seizure may be held liable personally for his
actions under § 1983. This warrant
application is materially false or made in reckless disregard for the Fourth
Amendment’s Warrant Clause. A search
must not exceed the scope of the search authorized in a warrant. By limiting the authorization to search to
the specific areas and things for which there is probable cause to search, the
Fourth Amendment’s requirement ensures that the search will be carefully
tailored to its justifications.
Consequently, it will not take on the character of the wide-ranging
exploratory searches the Framers of the Constitution intended to prohibit. There is a requirement that the police
identify themselves to the subject of a search, absent exigent circumstances. Aponte
Matos v. Toledo
Davilla (1st Cir. 1998)
Child’s four-month separation from his
parents could be challenged under substantive due process. Sham procedures don’t constitute true
procedural due process. Brokaw v. Mercer County
(7th Cir 2000)
Post-deprivation remedies do not provide
due process if pre-deprivation remedies are practicable. Bendiburg
v. Dempsey (11th Cir. 1990)
Children placed in a private foster home
have substantive due process rights to personal security and bodily integrity. Yvonne
L. v. New Mexico
Dept. of Human Services (10th Cir. 1992)
When the state places a child into
state-regulated foster care, the state has duties and the failure to perform
such duties may create liability under § 1983.
Liability may attach when the state has taken custody of a child,
regardless of whether the child came to stay with a family on his own which was
not an officially approved foster family.
Nicini v. Morra (3rd
A social worker who received a telephone
accusation of abuse and threatened to remove a child from the home unless the
father himself left and who did not have grounds to believe the child was in
imminent danger of being abused engaged in an arbitrary abuse of governmental
power in ordering the father to leave. Croft v. Westmoreland Cty. Children and
Youth Services (3rd Cir. 1997)
Plaintiff’s were arguable deprived of
their right to procedural due process because the intentional use of fraudulent
evidence into the procedures used by the state denied them the fight to
fundamentally fair procedures before having their child removed, a right
included in Procedural Due Process. Morris v. Dearborne (5th Cir.
When the state deprives parents and
children of their right to familial integrity, even in an emergency situation,
the burden is on the state to initiate prompt judicial proceedings for a
post-deprivation hearing, and it is irrelevant that a parent could have hired
counsel to force a hearing. K.H. through Murphy v. Morgan, (7th
When the state places a child in a foster
home it has an obligation to provide adequate medical care, protection, and
supervision. Norfleet v. Arkansas
Dept. of Human Services, (8th Cir. 1993)
Children may not be removed from their home
by police officers or social workers without notice and a hearing unless the
officials have a reasonable belief that the children were in imminent
danger. Ram v. Rubin, (9th Cir. 1997)
Absent extraordinary circumstances, a
parent has a liberty interest in familial association and privacy that cannot
be violated without adequate pre-deprivation procedures. An ex parte hearing based on
misrepresentation and omission does not constitute notice and an opportunity to
be heard. Procurement of an order to
seize a child through distortion, misrepresentation and/or omission is a
violation of the Forth Amendment.
Parents may assert their children’s Fourth Amendment claim on behalf of
their children as well as asserting their own Fourteenth Amendment claim. Malik
v.Arapahoe Cty. Dept. of Social Services, (10th Cir. 1999)
Plaintiff’s clearly established right to
meaningful access to the courts would be violated by suppression of evidence
and failure to report evidence. Chrissy v. Mississippi Dept. of Public Welfare, (5th
Mother had a clearly established right to
an adequate, prompt post-deprivation hearing.
A 17-day period prior to the hearing was not prompt hearing. Whisman
V. Rinehart, (8th Cir. 1997)
Police officers or social workers may not
“pick up” a child without an investigation or court order, absent an
emergency. Parental consent is required
to take children for medical exams, or an overriding order from the court after
parents have been heard. Wallis v. Spencer, (9th Cir
Child removals are “seizures” under the
Fourth Amendment. Seizure is
unconstitutional without court order or exigent circumstances. Court order obtained based on knowingly false
information violates Fourth Amendment. Brokaw v. Mercer County,
(7th Cir. 2000)
Defendant should’ve investigated further
prior to ordering seizure of children based on information he had
overheard. Hurlman v. Rice, (2nd Cir. 1991)
Police officer and social worker may not
conduct a warrantless search or seizure in a suspected abuse case absent
exigent circumstances. Defendants must
have reason to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy and that the
intrusion is reasonably necessary to alleviate the threat. Searches and seizures in investigation of a
child neglect or child abuse case at a home are governed by the same principles
as other searches and seizures at a home.
Good v. Dauphin County
Social Services, (3rd Cir. 1989)
Defendants could not lawfully seize a child
without a warrant or the existence of probable cause to believe the child was
in imminent danger of harm. Where police
were not informed of any abuse of the child prior to arriving at caretaker’s
home and found no evidence of abuse while there, seizure of the child was not
objectively reasonable and violated the clearly established Fourth Amendment
rights of the child. Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge, (5th Cir. 2000)
For purposes of the Fourth Amendment, a
“seizure” of a person is a situation in which a reasonable person would feel
that he is not free to leave, and also either actually yields to a show of
authority from police or social workers or is physically touched by
police. Persons may not be “seized”
without a court order or being placed under arrest. California v. Hodari, 499 U.S. 621 (1991)
Where the standard for a seizure or search
is probable cause, then there must be particularized information with respect
to a specific person. This requirement
cannot be undercut or avoided simply by pointing to the fact that
coincidentally there exists probable cause to arrest or to search or to seize
another person or to search a place where the person may happen to be. Yabarra
An officer who obtains a warrant through
material false statements which result in an unconstitutional seizure may be
held liable personally for his actions under § 1983. Aponte
Matos v. Toledo
Davilla, 1st Cir. 1998)
Social workers (and other government
employees) may be sued for deprivation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
if they are named in their ‘official and individual capacity’. Hafer
v. Melo, (S.Ct. 1991)
State law cannot provide immunity from
suit for Federal civil rights violations.
State law providing immunity from suit for child abuse investigators has
no application to suits under § 1983. Wallis v. Spencer, (9th Cir.
If the law was clearly established at the
time the action occurred, a police officer is not entitled to assert the
defense of qualified immunity based on good faith since a reasonably competent
public official should know the law governing his or her conduct. Harlow
v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S.
800, 818 (1982)
Immunity is defeated if the official took
the complained of action with malicious intention to cause a deprivation of
rights, or the official violated clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. McCord
v. Maggio, (5th Cir. 1991)
A defendant in a civil rights case is not
entitled to any immunity if he or she gave false information either in support
of an application for a search warrant or in presenting evidence to a
prosecutor on which the prosecutor based his or her charge against the
plaintiff. Young v. Biggers, (5th Cir. 1991)
Police officer was not entitled to
absolute immunity for her role in procurement of a court order placing a child
in state custody where there was evidence officer spoke with the social worker
prior to social worker’s conversation with the magistrate and there was evidence
that described the collaborative worker of the two defendants in creating a
“plan of action” to deal with the situation.
Officer’s acts were investigative and involved more that merely carrying
out a judicial order. Malik v. Arapahoe Cty. Dept. of Social
Services, (10th Cir. 1999)
Individuals aren’t immune for the results
of their official conduct simply because they were enforcing policies or
orders. Where a statute authorizes
official conduct which is patently violation of fundamental constitutional
principles, an officer who enforces that statute is not entitled to qualified
immunity. Grossman v. City of Portland,
(9th Cir. (1994)
Social workers were not entitled to
absolute immunity for pleadings filed to obtain a pick-up order for temporary
custody prior to formal petition being filed.
Social workers were not entitled to absolute immunity where department
policy was for social workers to report findings of neglect or abuse to other
authorities for further investigation or initiation of court proceedings. Social workers investigating claims of child
abuse are entitled only to qualified immunity.
Assisting in the use of information known to be false to further an investigation
is not subject to absolute immunity.
Social workers are not entitled to qualified immunity on claims they
deceived judicial officers in obtaining a custody order or deliberately or
recklessly incorporated known falsehoods into their reports, criminal
complaints and applications. Use of
information known to be false is not reasonable, and acts of deliberate falsity
or reckless disregard of the truth are not entitled to qualified immunity. No qualified immunity is available for
incorporating allegations into the report or application where official had no
reasonable basis to assume the allegations were true at the time the document
was prepared. Snell v. Tunnel, (10 Cir. 1990)
Police officer is not entitled to absolute
immunity, only qualified immunity, to claim that he caused plaintiff to be
unlawfully arrested by presenting judge with an affidavit that failed to
establish probable cause. Malley v. Briggs, S.Ct. 1986)
Defendants were not entitled to
prosecutorial immunity where complaint was based on failure to investigate,
detaining minor child, and an inordinate delay in filing court proceedings,
because such actions did not aid in the presentation of a case to the juvenile
court. Whisman v. Rinehart, (8th Cir. 1997)
Case worker who intentionally or
recklessly withheld potentially exculpatory information from an adjudicated
delinquent or from the court itself was not entitled to qualified immunity. Germany v. Vance, (1st Cir. 1989)
Defendant was not entitled to qualified
immunity or summary judgment because he should’ve investigated further prior to
ordering seizure of children based on information he had overheard. Hurlman
v. Rice, (2nd Cir. 1991)
Defendants were not entitled to qualified
immunity for conducting warrantless search of home during a child abuse
investigation where exigent circumstances were not present. Good
v. Dauphin County Social Services, (3rd
Social workers were not entitled to
absolute immunity where no court order commanded them to place plaintiff with
particular foster caregivers. K.H through Murphy v. Morgan, (7th
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT UPHOLDING
RIGHTS AS “FUNDAMENTAL”
Paris Adult Theater v. Slaton, 413 US 49, 65 (1973)
this case, the Court includes the right of parents to rear children among
rights “deemed fundamental.” Our prior
decisions recognizing a right to privacy guaranteed by the 14th Amendment
included only personal rights that can be deemed fundamental or implicit
in the concept of ordered liberty . . . This privacy right encompasses and
protects the personal intimacies of the home, the family, marriage, motherhood,
procreation, and child rearing . . . cf . . . Pierce v. Society of
Sisters; Meyer v. Nebraska . . . nothing, however, in this Court’s
decisions intimates that there is any fundamental privacy right implicit in the
concept of ordered liberty to watch obscene movies and places of public
accommodation. [emphasis supplied]
Carey v. Population Services International, 431 US 678, 684-686 (1977)
Once again, the Court includes the right
of parents in the area of “child rearing and education” to be a liberty
interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, requiring an application of the
“compelling interest test.” Although the
Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy, the Court has recognized
that one aspect of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of
the 14th Amendment is a “right of personal privacy or a guarantee of certain
areas or zones of privacy . . . This right of personal privacy includes the
interest and independence in making certain kinds of important decisions . . .
While the outer limits of this aspect of privacy have not been marked by the
Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without
unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage
. . . family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 US
158 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society
of Sisters, 268 US 510 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska,
262 US 390 (1923).’ [emphasis supplied]
The Court continued by explaining that
these rights are not absolute and, certain state interests . . . may at some
point become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that
govern the abortion decision . . . Compelling is, of course, the key word;
where decisions as fundamental as whether to bear or beget a child is involved,
regulations imposing a burden on it may be justified only by a compelling
state interest, and must be narrowly drawn to express only those interests. [emphasis supplied]
Maher v. Roe, 432 US 464, 476-479 (1977)
We conclude that the Connecticut
regulation does not impinge on the fundamental right recognized in Roe
… There is a basic difference between direct state interference with a
protected activity and state encouragement of an alternative activity consonant
with legislative policy … This distinction is implicit in two cases cited in Roe
in support of the pregnant woman’s right under the 14th Amendment. In Meyer v. Nebraska. . . the Court
held that the teacher’s right thus to teach and the right of parents to engage
in so to instruct their children were within the liberty of the 14th
Amendment . . . In Pierce v. Society of Sisters . . . the Court
relied on Meyer . . . reasoning that the 14th Amendment’s concept of
liberty excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children
by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The Court held that the law unreasonably
interfered with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing
and education of the children under their control …
invalidated substantial restrictions of constitutionally protected liberty
interests: in Meyer, the parent’s right to have his child taught a
particular foreign language; in Pierce, the parent’s right to choose
private rather than public school education.
But neither case denied to a state the policy choice of encouraging the
preferred course of action … Pierce casts no shadow over a state’s
power to favor public education by funding it — a policy choice pursued in some
States for more than a century … Indeed in Norwood v. Harrison,
413 US 455, 462, (1973), we explicitly rejected the argument that Pierce
established a “right of private or parochial schools to share with the public schools
in state largesse,” noting that “It is one thing to say that a state may not
prohibit the maintenance of private schools and quite another to say that such
schools must as a matter of equal protection receive state aid” … We think it
abundantly clear that a state is not required to show a compelling interest for
its policy choice to favor a normal childbirth anymore than a state must so
justify its election to fund public, but not private education. [emphasis supplied]
Although the Maher decision unquestionably
recognizes parents’ rights as fundamental rights, the Court has clearly
indicated that private schools do not have a fundamental right to state aid,
nor must a state satisfy the compelling interest test if it chooses not to
give private schools state aid. The
Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act simply reaffirms the right of parents
to choose private education as fundamental, but it does not make the right to
receive public funds a fundamental right.
The PRRA, therefore, does not in any way promote or strengthen the
concept of educational vouchers.
Parham v. J.R., 442 US 584, 602-606 (1979).
This case involves parent’s rights to make
medical decisions regarding their children’s mental health. The lower Court had ruled that Georgia’s statutory
scheme of allowing children to be subject to treatment in the state’s mental
health facilities violated the Constitution because it did not adequately
protect children’s due process rights. The
Supreme Court reversed this decision upholding the legal presumption that
parents act in their children’s best interest.
The Court ruled:
Our jurisprudence historically has
reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad
parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed
that course; our constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that a
child is “the mere creature of the State” and, on the contrary, asserted that parents
generally “have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare
[their children] for additional obligations.” Pierce v. Society of
Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925) … [other citations omitted]
. . . The law’s concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents
possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment
required for making life’s difficult decisions. More important,
historically it has been recognized that natural bonds of affection lead
parents to act in the best interests of their children. 1 W. Blackstone,
Commentaries 447; 2 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 190. As with so many other legal presumptions,
experience and reality may rebut what the law accepts as a starting point; the
incidence of child neglect and abuse cases attests to this. That some parents
“may at times be acting against the interests of their children” … creates a
basis for caution, but it is hardly a reason to discard wholesale those pages
of human experience that teach that parents generally do act in the child’s
best interest … The statist notion that governmental power should supersede
parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and
neglect children is repugnant to American tradition. [emphasis supplied]
are clearly upheld in this decision recognizing the rights of parents to make
health decisions for their children. The
Court continues by explaining the balancing that must take place:
Nonetheless, we have recognized that a state is not
without constitutional control over parental discretion in dealing with children
when their physical or mental health is jeopardized (See Wisconsin v. Yoder;
Prince v. Massachusetts). Moreover,
the Court recently declared unconstitutional a state statute that granted
parents an absolute veto over a minor child’s decisions to have an abortion, Planned
Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 US 52 (1976),
Appellees urged that these precedents limiting the traditional rights of
parents, if viewed in the context of a liberty interest of the child and the
likelihood of parental abuse, require us to hold that parent’s decision to have
a child admitted to a mental hospital must be subjected to an exacting
constitutional scrutiny, including a formal, adversary, pre-admission
Appellees’ argument, however, sweeps too
broadly. Simply because the decision of
a parent is not agreeable to a child, or because it involves risks does not
automatically transfer power to make that decision from the parents to some
agency or officer of the state. The same
characterizations can be made for a tonsillectomy, appendectomy, or other
medical procedure. Most children, even
in adolescence, simply are not able to make sound judgments concerning many
decisions, including their need for medical care or treatment. Parents can and must make those judgments …
we cannot assume that the result in Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, and Pierce
v. Society of Sisters, supra, would have been different if the children
there had announced or preference to go to a public, rather that a church
school. The fact that a child may balk
at hospitalization or complain about a parental refusal to provide cosmetic
surgery does not diminish the parent’s authority to decide what is best for the
child (See generally Goldstein, Medical Case for the Child at Risk: on State
Supervention of Parental Autonomy, 86 Yale LJ 645, 664-668 (1977); Bennett,
Allocation of Child Medical Care Decision — Making Authority: A Suggested
Interest Analyses, 62 Va LR ev 285, 308 (1976). Neither state officials nor federal Courts
are equipped to review such parental decisions.
Therefore, it is clear that the Court is
recognizing parents as having the right to make judgments concerning their
children who are not able to make sound decisions, including their need for
medical care. A parent’s authority to
decide what is best for the child in the areas of medical treatment cannot be
diminished simply because a child disagrees.
A parent’s right must be protected and not simply transferred to some
City of Akron v. Akron Center
for Reproductive Health Inc., 462 US 416, 461 (1983)
case includes, in a long list of protected liberties and fundamental rights,
the parental rights guaranteed under Pierce and Meyer. The Court indicated a compelling interest
test must be applied. Central among
these protected liberties is an individual’s freedom of personal choice in
matters of marriage and family life … Roe … Griswold … Pierce
v. Society of Sisters … Meyer v. Nebraska … But restrictive
state regulation of the right to choose abortion as with other fundamental
rights subject to searching judicial examination, must be supported by a
compelling state interest. [emphasis
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 US 745, 753 (1982)
This case involved the Appellate Division
of the New York Supreme Court affirming the application of the preponderance of
the evidence standard as proper and constitutional in ruling that the parent’s
rights are permanently terminated. The
U.S. Supreme Court, however, vacated the lower Court decision, holding that due
process as required under the 14th Amendment in this case required proof by
clear and convincing evidence rather than merely a preponderance of the
Court, in reaching their decision, made it clear that parents’ rights as
outlined in Pierce and Meyer are fundamental and specially
protected under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court began by quoting another Supreme Court case:
In Lassiter [Lassiter v.
Department of Social Services, 452 US 18, 37 (1981)], it was “not
disputed that state intervention to terminate the relationship between a parent
and a child must be accomplished by procedures meeting the requisites of the
Due Process Clause”. . . The absence of dispute reflected this Court’s
historical recognition that freedom of personal choice in matters of family
life is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the 14th Amendment
… Pierce v. Society of Sisters … Meyer v. Nebraska.
fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody,
and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not
been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the state
… When the state moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide
the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.
Lehr v. Robertson, 463 US 248, 257-258 (1983)
In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court
upheld a decision against a natural father’s rights under the Due Process and
Equal Protection Clauses since he did not have any significant custodial,
personal, or financial relationship with the child. The natural father was challenging an
adoption. The Supreme Court stated: In
some cases, however, this Court has held that the federal constitution
supersedes state law and provides even greater protection for certain formal
family relationships. In those cases …
the Court has emphasized the paramount interest in the welfare of children and
has noted that the rights of the parents are a counterpart of the
responsibilities they have assumed. Thus,
the liberty of parents to control the education of their children that was
vindicated in Meyer v. Nebraska … and Pierce v. Society of Sisters
… was described as a “right coupled with the high duty to recognize and
prepare the child for additional obligations” … The linkage between parental
duty and parental right was stressed again in Prince v. Massachusetts
… The Court declared it a cardinal principle “that the custody, care and
nurture of the child reside first in the parents whose primary function
and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply
nor hinder.” In these cases, the Court has found that the relationship of love
and duty in a recognized family unit is an interest in liberty entitled to
Constitutional protection … “State intervention to terminate such a
relationship … must be accomplished by procedures meeting the requisites of
the Due Process Clause” Santosky v. Kramer … [emphasis
is clear by the above case that parental rights are to be treated as
fundamental and cannot be taken away without meeting the constitutional
requirement of due process.
Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of
Duarte, 481 US
this case, a Californian civil rights statute was held not to violate the First
Amendment by requiring an all male non-profit club to admit women to membership. The Court concluded that parents’ rights in
child rearing and education are included as fundamental elements of liberty
protected by the Bill of Rights.
The Court has recognized that the freedom
to enter into and carry on certain intimate or private relationships is a fundamental
element of liberty protected by the Bill of Rights … the intimate
relationships to which we have accorded Constitutional protection include
marriage … the begetting and bearing of children, child rearing and
education. Pierce v. Society of
Sisters … [emphasis supplied]
H. v. Gerald, 491 U.S.
a paternity suit, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled: It is an established part of
our constitution jurisprudence that the term liberty in the Due Process Clause
extends beyond freedom from physical restraint.
See, e.g. Pierce v. Society of Sisters … Meyer v.
Nebraska … In an attempt to limit and guide interpretation of the
Clause, we have insisted not merely that the interest denominated as a
“liberty” be “fundamental” (a concept that, in isolation, is hard to
objectify), but also that it be an interest traditionally protected by our
society. As we have put it, the Due
Process Clause affords only those protections “so rooted in the traditions and
conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental” Snyder v.
Massachusetts, 291 US
97, 105 (1934). [emphasis
supplied] The Court explicitly included
the parental rights under Pierce and Meyer as “fundamental” and
interests “traditionally protected by our society.”
Division of Oregon
v. Smith, 494 U.S.
of the more recent decisions which upholds the right of parents is Employment
Division of Oregon v. Smith, which involved two Indians who were fired
from a private drug rehabilitation organization because they ingested “peyote,”
a hallucinogenic drug as part of their religious beliefs. When they sought unemployment compensation, they
were denied because they were discharged for “misconduct.”
Indians appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals who reversed on the grounds
that they had the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs by taking
drugs. Of course, as expected, the U.S.
Supreme Court reversed the case and found that the First Amendment did not
protect drug use. So what does the case
have to do with parental rights?
the Court ruled against the Indians, it then analyzed the application of the
Free Exercise Clause generally. The
Court wrongly decided to throw out the Free Exercise Clause as a defense to any
“neutral” law that might violate an individual’s religious convictions. In the process of destroying religious
freedom, the Court went out of its way to say that the parents’ rights to
control the education of their children is still a fundamental right. The Court declared that the “compelling
interest test” is still applicable, not to the Free Exercise Clause alone:
the Free Exercise Clause in conjunction with other constitutional
protections such as … the right of parents, acknowledged in Pierce
v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), to direct the
education of their children, see Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406
U.S.205 (1972) invalidating compulsory-attendance laws as applied to Amish
parents who refused on religious grounds to send their children to school.19 [emphasis supplied]
other words, under this precedent, parents’ rights to control the education of
their children is considered a “constitutionally protected right” which
requires the application of the compelling interest test. The Court in Smith quoted its previous
case of Wisconsin v. Yoder:
Yoder said that “The Court’s holding in Pierce
stands as a charter for the rights of parents to direct the religious
upbringing of their children. And when
the interests of parenthood are combined with a free exercise claim … more
than merely a reasonable relationship to some purpose within the competency
of the State is required to sustain the validity of the State’s requirement
under the First Amendment.” 406 U.S.,
at 233.20 [emphasis supplied]
Instead of merely showing that a
regulation conflicting with parents’ rights is reasonable, the state must,
therefore, reach the higher standard of the “compelling interest test,” which
requires the state to prove its regulation to be the least restrictive means.
Hodgson v. Minnesota,
Hodgson the Court found that parental rights not only are protected
under the First and Fourteenth Amendments as fundamental and more important
than property rights, but that they are “deemed essential.”
family has a privacy interest in the upbringing and education of children and
the intimacies of the marital relationship which is protected by the
Constitution against undue state interference.
See Wisconsin v
Yoder, 7 406 US 205
… The statist notion that governmental
power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents
abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition.” In other words,
under this precedent, parents’ rights to control the education of their
children is considered a “constitutionally protected right” which requires the
application of the compelling interest test.
The Court in Smith quoted its previous case of Wisconsin v.
Yoder said that “The Court’s holding in Pierce
stands as a charter for the rights of parents to direct the religious
upbringing of their children. And when
the interests of parenthood are combined with a free exercise claim … more than merely a reasonable relationship
to some purpose within the competency of the State is required to sustain the
validity of the State’s requirement under the First Amendment.” 406 U.S., at 233.20 [emphasis supplied]
Instead of merely showing that a
regulation conflicting with parents’ rights is reasonable, the state must,
therefore, reach the higher standard of the “compelling interest test,” which
requires the state to prove its regulation to be the least restrictive means.
Parham, 442 US, at 603, [other citations omitted]. We have long held that there exists a
“private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.” Prince v
natural parent who has demonstrated sufficient commitment to his or her
children is thereafter entitled to raise the children free from undue state
interference. As Justice White explained
in his opinion of the Court in Stanley
405 US 645 (1972) [other cites omitted]:
court has frequently emphasized the importance of the family. The rights to conceive and to raise
one’s children have been deemed ‘essential,’ Meyer v Nebraska,
… ‘basic civil rights of man,’ Skinner v Oklahoma, 316 US
535, 541 (1942), and ‘[r]ights far more precious … than property rights,’
May v Anderson, 345 US 528, 533 (1953) … The integrity of the family unit has found
protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Meyer v
Nebraska, supra.” [emphasis supplied]
Court leaves no room for doubt as to the importance and protection of the
rights of parents.
H.L. v. Matheson, 450 US 398, 410 (1991)
In this case, the Supreme Court recognized
the parents’ right to know about their child seeking an abortion. The Court stated: In addition, constitutional
interpretation has consistently recognized that the parents’ claim to authority
in their own household to direct the rearing of their children is basic in the
structure of our society.
Ginsberg v. New York, 390 US 629 (1968) …
We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between
the parent and the child is Constitutionally protected (Wisconsin v. Yoder,
Stanley v. Illinois, Meyer v. Nebraska) …
“It is cardinal with us that the custody, care, and nurture of the child
reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom includes
preparation for obligations the state can neither supply, nor hinder.” [Quoting
Prince v. Massachusetts,
158, 166, (1944)]. See also Parham
v. J.R.; Pierce v. Society of Sisters … We have recognized that parents have an
important “guiding role” to play in the upbringing of their children, Bellotti
II, 443 US 633-639 … which presumptively includes counseling them on
Court clearly upholds the parent’s right to know in the area of minor children
making medical decisions.
District 47J v. Acton, 132 L.Ed.2d 564, 115 S.Ct.
Vernonia the Court strengthened parental rights by approaching the issue
from a different point of view. They
reasoned that children do not have many of the rights accorded citizens, and in
lack thereof, parents and guardians possess and exercise those rights and
authorities in the child’s best interest:
at common law, and still today, unemancipated minors lack some of the most
fundamental rights of self-determination—including even the right of liberty in
its narrow sense, i.e., the right to come and go at will. They are subject, even as to their physical
freedom, to the control of their parents or guardians. See Am Jur 2d, Parent and Child § 10 (1987).
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)
In this case, the United States Supreme
Court issued a landmark opinion on parental liberty. The case involved a Washington State statute
which provided that a “court may order visitation rights for any person
when visitation may serve the best interests of the child, whether or not there
has been any change of circumstances.” Wash. Rev. Code § 26.10.160(3). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Washington statute
“unconstitutionally interferes with the fundamental right of parents to
rear their children.” The Court went on to examine its treatment of
parental rights in previous cases: In subsequent cases also, we have recognized
the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care,
custody, and control of their children…Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205,
232, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 92 S. Ct. 1526 (1972) (“The history and
culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern
for the nurture and this case clearly upholds parental rights. In essence, this decision means that the
government may not infringe parents’ right to direct the education and
upbringing of their children unless it can show that it is using the least
restrictive means to achieve a compelling governmental interest.
No. 02-9410. Argued November
Decided March 8, 2004
certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington
was tried for assault and attempted murder.
The State sought to introduce a recorded statement that petitioner’s
wife Sylvia had made during police interrogation, as evidence that the stabbing
was not in self-defense. Sylvia did not
testify at trial because of Washington’s
marital privilege. Petitioner argued
that admitting the evidence would violate his Sixth Amendment right to be
“confronted with the witnesses against him.” Under Ohio
v. Roberts, 448 U. S. 56, that right does not bar
admission of an unavailable witness’s statement against a criminal defendant if
the statement bears “adequate ‘indicia of reliability,’ ” a test
met when the evidence either falls within a “firmly rooted hearsay
exception” or bears “particularized guarantees of
at 66. The trial court admitted the
statement on the latter ground. The
State Supreme Court upheld the conviction, deeming the statement reliable
because it was nearly identical to, i.e., interlocked with,
petitioner’s own statement to the police, in that both were ambiguous as to
whether the victim had drawn a weapon before petitioner assaulted him.
Held: The State’s use of Sylvia’s statement violated
the Confrontation Clause because, where testimonial statements are at issue,
the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands
is confrontation. Pp. 5-33.
Confrontation Clause’s text does not alone resolve this case, so this Court
turns to the Clause’s historical background.
That history supports two principles.
First, the principal evil at which the Clause was directed was the
civil-law mode of criminal procedure, particularly the use of ex parte
examinations as evidence against the accused.
The Clause’s primary object is testimonial hearsay, and interrogations
by law enforcement officers fall squarely within that class. Second, the Framers would not have allowed
admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial
unless he was unavailable to testify and the defendant had had a prior
opportunity for cross-examination. English
authorities and early state cases indicate that this was the common law at the
time of the founding. And the
“right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him,” Amdt. 6,
is most naturally read as a reference to the common-law right of confrontation,
admitting only those exceptions established at the time of the founding. See Mattox v. United States,
156 U. S. 237, 243. Pp. 5-21.
Court’s decisions have generally remained faithful to the Confrontation
Clause’s original meaning. See, e.g.,
Mattox, supra. Pp. 21-23.
the same cannot be said of the rationales of this Court’s more recent decisions. See Roberts, supra, at 66. The Roberts test departs from
historical principles because it admits statements consisting of ex parte
testimony upon a mere reliability finding.
Confrontation Clause commands that reliability be assessed in a particular
manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination. Roberts allows a jury to hear
evidence, untested by the adversary process, based on a mere judicial
determination of reliability, thus replacing the constitutionally prescribed
method of assessing reliability with a wholly foreign one. Pp. 25-27.
framework is unpredictable. Whether
a statement is deemed reliable depends on which factors a judge considers and
how much weight he accords each of them.
However, the unpardonable vice of the Roberts test is its
demonstrated capacity to admit core testimonial statements that the
Confrontation Clause plainly meant to exclude.
instant case is a self-contained demonstration of Roberts’
unpredictable and inconsistent application.
It also reveals Roberts’ failure to interpret the Constitution
in a way that secures its intended constraint on judicial discretion. The Constitution prescribes the procedure for
determining the reliability of testimony in criminal trials, and this Court, no
less than the state courts, lacks authority to replace it with one of its own
devising. Pp. 30-32.
147 Wash.2d 424, 54
P. 3d 656, reversed and remanded.
J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Kennedy,
Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Rehnquist, C. J., filed an
opinion concurring in the judgment, in which O’Connor, J., joined.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE A PARENT
Below are excerpts
of case law from state appellate and federal district courts and up to the U.S. Supreme Court, all of which affirm, from one
perspective or another, the absolute Constitutional right of parents to
actually BE parents to their children.
rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such
character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental
principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and
political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this
amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14.
Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).
The several states have no greater
power to restrain individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than
does the Congress of the United
Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S Ct
2479; 472 US
Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for
even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not
absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the
burden of proving which rests on their government. Elrod
v. Burns, 96 S Ct 2673; 427 US
Law and court procedures that are
“fair on their faces” but administered “with an evil eye or a
heavy hand” was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, (1886).
Even when blood relationships are
strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction
of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of
their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than
do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. Santosky
v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US
Parents have a fundamental
constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal bond with their
children. Matter of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma (1980). .
The liberty interest of the family
encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one’s children and, thus, a
state may not interfere with a parent’s custodial rights absent due process
protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. (1981).
Parent’s right to custody of child is a
right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be
interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action
which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within
competency of state to effect. Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d
858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).
Parent’s interest in custody of her
children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional
protection; a parent, who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even
though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves
extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437;
5 Kansas App
Div 2d 584, (1980).
The Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship
caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty
interests at stake. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205; US Ct App 7th Cir WI,
Father enjoys the right to associate
with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated
in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of “liberty” as
that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp
620; DC, WI (1973).
“Separated as our issue is from
that of the future interests of the children, we have before us the elemental
question whether a court of a state, where a mother is neither domiciled,
resident nor present, may cut off her immediate right to the care, custody,
management and companionship of her minor children without having jurisdiction
over her in person. Rights far more
precious to appellant than property rights will be cut off if she is to be
bound by the Wisconsin award of custody.”
May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843,
A parent’s right to care and
companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to be guaranteed
protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States Constitution. In re: J.S. and C., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super,
The Court stressed, “the
parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants
deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.” A
parent’s interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or
her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of
family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility. Stanley
645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208, (1972).
Parent’s rights have been recognized
as being “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man.”
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390; 43 S Ct 625, (1923).
The U.S. Supreme Court implied that
“a (once) married father who is separated or divorced from a mother and is
no longer living with his child” could not constitutionally be treated
differently from a currently married father living with his child. Quilloin
v. Walcott, 98 S Ct 549; 434 US
246, 255^Q56, (1978).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th
held that the parent-child relationship is a constitutionally protected liberty
interest. (See; Declaration of
Independence –life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the 14th
Amendment of the United States Constitution — No state can deprive any person
of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny any person the
equal protection of the laws.) Kelson
767 F 2d 651; US Ct
App 9th Cir, (1985).
The parent-child relationship is a
liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 f 2d 1205, 1242^Q45; US Ct App 7th Cir WI,
No bond is more precious and none
should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and
child.” Carson v. Elrod, 411 F
Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976).
A parent’s right to the preservation
of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent’s
achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on
his ability to participate in the rearing of his children. A child’s corresponding right to protection
from interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to
him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult. Franz
707 F 2d 582, 595^Q599; US Ct
A parent’s right to the custody of his
or her children is an element of “liberty” guaranteed by the 5th
Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Matter
of Gentry, 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983).
Reality of private biases and possible
injury they might inflict were impermissible considerations under the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Palmore v. Sidoti, 104 S Ct
1879; 466 US
Legislative classifications which
distributes benefits and burdens on the basis of gender carry the inherent risk
of reinforcing stereotypes about the proper place of women and their need for
special protection; thus, even statutes purportedly designed to compensate for
and ameliorate the effects of past discrimination against women must be
carefully tailored. The state cannot be
permitted to classify on the basis of sex.
Orr v. Orr, 99 S Ct 1102; 440 US 268, (1979).
The United States Supreme Court held
that the “old notion” that “generally it is the man’s primary
responsibility to provide a home and its essentials” can no longer justify
a statute that discriminates on the basis of gender. No longer is the female destined solely for
the home and the rearing of the family, and only the male for the marketplace
and the world of ideas. Stanton v. Stanton,
7, 10; 95 S Ct 1373, 1376, (1975).
Judges must maintain a high standard
of judicial performance with particular emphasis upon conducting litigation
with scrupulous fairness and impartiality.
28 USCA § 2411; Pfizer v. Lord,
456 F.2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct App MN, (1972).
State Judges, as well as federal, have
the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal
constitutional rights. Gross v. State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257; (1963).
The Constitution also protects
“the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.”
Federal Courts (and State Courts), under Griswold can protect, under the
“life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” phrase of the Declaration of
Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care, company, love and
affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due
process of law. There is a family right
to privacy which the state cannot invade or it becomes actionable for civil
rights damages. Griswold v. Connecticut,
The right of a parent not to be
deprived of parental rights without a showing of fitness, abandonment or
substantial neglect is so fundamental and basic as to rank among the rights
contained in this Amendment (Ninth) and Utah’s Constitution, Article 1 § 1. In
re U.P., 648 P 2d 1364; Utah,
rights of parents to parent-child relationships are recognized and upheld. Fantony
v. Fantony, 122 A 2d 593, (1956); Brennan v. Brennan, 454 A 2d 901, (1982). State’s power to legislate, adjudicate and
administer all aspects of family law, including determinations of custodial;
and visitation rights, is subject to scrutiny by federal judiciary within reach
of due process and/or equal protection clauses of 14th Amendment…Fourteenth
Amendment applied to states through specific rights contained in the first
eight amendments of the Constitution which declares fundamental personal
rights…Fourteenth Amendment encompasses and applied to states those
preexisting fundamental rights recognized by the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment acknowledged the prior
existence of fundamental rights with it: “The enumeration in the
Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people.”
United States Supreme Court in a long line of decisions has recognized that
matters involving marriage, procreation, and the parent-child relationship are
among those fundamental “liberty” interests protected by the
Constitution. Thus, the decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113; 93 S Ct 705; 35
L Ed 2d 147, (1973), was recently described by the Supreme Court as
founded on the “Constitutional underpinning of … a recognition that the
“liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment
includes not only the freedoms explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but
also a freedom of personal choice in certain matters of marriage and family
life.” The non-custodial divorced parent has no way to implement the
constitutionally protected right to maintain a parental relationship with his
child except through visitation. To
acknowledge the protected status of the relationship as the majority does, and
yet deny protection under Title 42 USC § 1983, to visitation, which is the
exclusive means of effecting that right, is to negate the right completely. Wise
v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, (1981).
SUPREME COURT, 1910
controversies affecting the custody of an infant, the interest and welfare of
the child is the primary and controlling question by which the court must be
guided. This rule is based upon the theory that the state must perpetuate
itself, and good citizenship is essential to that end. Though nature gives
to parents the right to the custody of their own children, and such right is
scarcely less sacred than the right to life and liberty, and is manifested in
all animal life, yet among mankind the necessity for government has forced the
recognition of the rule that the perpetuity of the state is the first
consideration, and parental authority itself is subordinate to this supreme
power. It is recognized that: ‘The moment a child is born it owes
allegiance to the government of the country of its birth, and is entitled to
the protection of that government. And such government is obligated by
its duty of protection, to consult the welfare, comfort and interest of such
child in regulating its custody during the period of its minority.’ Mercein
v. People, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 64, 103, 35 Am. Dec. 653; McKercher v. Green,
13 Colo. App.
271, 58 Pac. 406. But as
government should never interfere with the natural rights of man, except only
when it is essential for the good of society, the state recognizes, and enforces,
the right which nature gives to parents [48 Colo. 466] to the custody of their
own children, and only supervenes with its sovereign power when the necessities
of the case require it.
experience of man has demonstrated that the best development of a young life is
within the sacred precincts of a home, the members of which are bound together
by ties entwined through ‘bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh’; that it
is in such homes and under such influences that the sweetest, purest, noblest,
and most attractive qualities of human nature, so essential to good
citizenship, are best nurtured and grow to wholesome fruition; that, when a
state is based and build upon such homes, it is strong in patriotism, courage,
and all the elements of the best civilization. Accordingly these
recurring facts in the experience of man resulted in a presumption establishing
prima facie that parents are in every way qualified to have the care, custody,
and control of their own offspring, and that their welfare and interests are
best subserved under such control. Thus, by natural law, by common law,
and, likewise, the statutes of this state, the natural parents are entitled to
the custody of their minor children, except when they are unsuitable persons to
be entrusted with their care, control, and education, or when some exceptional
circumstances appear which render such custody inimicable to the best interests
of the child. While the right of a parent to the custody of its infant
child is therefore, in a sense, contingent, the right can never be lost or
taken away so long as the parent properly nurtures, maintains, and cares for
the child. Wilson v. Mitchell, 111 P. 21, 25-26, 48 Colo. 454 (Colo. 1910)
U.S. Supreme Court has consistently protected parental rights, including it
among those rights deemed fundamental. As
a fundamental right, parental liberty is to be protected by the highest
standard of review: the compelling interest test. As can be seen from the cases described
above, parental rights have reached their highest level of protection in over
75 years. The Court decisively confirmed
these rights in the recent case of Troxel v. Granville, which
should serve to maintain and protect parental rights for many years to come.
As long as CPS is allowed to have an
exaggerated view of their power andis allowed by state officials and the courts to
exploit that power and abuse it against both children and parents, they will
both be continually harmed. The
constitution is there for two primary reasons, 1) to restrict the power of the government
and 2) to protect the people from the government, not the government from the
people. And the constitution is there to
prohibit certain activity from government officials and that prohibition does
not apply to one type or kind of official but to ANY government official
whether it is the police, CPS or FBI.
ARE SUPERVISORS LIABLE FOR HIS OR HER CULPABLE ACTION
OR INACTION IN THE SUPERVISION, OR CONTROL OF HIS OR HER SUBORDINATES; FOR HIS
OR HER ACQUIESCENCE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEPRIVATION OR FOR CONDUCT THAT
SHOWED A RECKLESS OR CALLOS INDIFFERENCE TO THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS?
1983 places liability on ANY person who “subjects, or causes to be
subjected” another to a constitutional deprivation. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This language suggests that there are two
ways a defendant may be liable for a constitutional deprivation under § 1983:
(1) direct, personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation on the
part of the defendant, or (2) actions or omissions that are not constitutional
violations in themselves, but foreseeably leads to a constitutional violation. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
offered a most cogent discussion of this issue in Arnold v. International Bus. Machines Corp.,
637 F.2d 1350 (9th Cir. 1981):
person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within
the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in
another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally
required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made….
Moreover, personal participation is not the only predicate for section 1983
liability. Anyone who “causes”
any citizen to be subjected to a constitutional deprivation is also liable. The requisite causal
connection can be established not only by some kind of direct personal
participation in the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of
acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause
others to inflict the constitutional injury.
Id. at 1355 (emphasis added) (quoting Johnson
v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978)).
supervisor is liable under § 1983 if s/he “does an affirmative act,
participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which
[s/]he is legally required to do.” Causing constitutional injury. Johnson
v. Duffy, 588 F. 2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978). A supervisor is liable for “his own culpable
action or inaction in the training, supervision, or control of his
subordinates; for his acquiescence in the constitutional deprivation …; for
conduct that showed a reckless or callous indifference to the rights of
others.” Watkins v. City of Oakland, 145 F. 3d 1087,
1093 (9th Cir. 1997)
supervisor can be liable in his individual capacity if “he set in motion a
series of acts by others, or knowingly refused to terminate a series of acts by
others, which he knew or reasonably should have known would cause others to
inflict the constitutional injury.” Larez
v. City of Los Angeles,
946 F. 2d 630, 646 (9th Cir. 1991). “Supervisory indifference or tacit
authorization of subordinates’ misconduct may be a causative factor in
constitutional injuries they inflict.” Slakan
v. Porter, 737 F. 2d 368, 373 (4th Cir. 1984). “We have explained the nature of the
causation required in cases of this kind in Johnson
v. Duffy, 588 F. 2d 740 (9th Cir. 1978). There, we held that for purposes of § 1983
liability the requisite causal chain can occur through the ‘setting in motion
[of] a series of acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know
would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.’ Id. at 743-44. There is little question here that Cooper and
Roderick should have known that falsely placing the blame for the initial Ruby
Ridge incident on Harris would lead to the type of constitutional injuries he
suffered.” Harris v. Roderick,
126 F. 3d 1189 (9th Cir. 1997).
A PRIVATE CITIZEN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER § 1983 EVEN THOUGH PRIVATE CITIZENS
CANNOT ORDINARILY BE HELD LIABLE UNDER § 1983?
While a private citizen cannot
ordinarily be held liable under § 1983 because that statute requires action
under color of state law, if a private
citizen conspires with a state actor, then the private citizen is subject to §
1983 liability. Brokaw v. Mercer County, 235 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir 2001)
quoting Bowman v. City of Franklin, 980 F.2d 1104, 1107 (7th Cir.
1992) “To establish § 1983
liability through a conspiracy theory, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) a
state official and private individual(s) reached an understanding to deprive
the plaintiff of his constitutional rights, and (2) those individual(s) were
willful participants in joint activity with the State or its agents.” Fries v. Helsper, 146 F.3d 452, 457 (7th
Cir. 1998) (internal quotation and citations omitted). Not only did both Bonnie Maskery and the
state Defendants conspire to harm Mrs. Dutkiewicz because she practiced Wicca,
Maskery continued to conspire with state Defendants by manufacturing evidence
and lying in order to deny the Plaintiffs their due process rights to a fair
trial. Plaintiff told state Defendants
in writing and over the phone that Maskery was a fraud and impersonating a therapist
prior to submitting the petition to the court yet the state Defendants
willfully filed the fraudulent petition.
this case, C.A.
alleged just such a conspiracy between Weir and Karen, and Deputy Sheriff James
Brokaw. Specifically, C.A. asserted
that Weir and Karen conspired with James, who was a deputy sheriff, in July
1983 to file false allegations of child neglect in order to cause the DCFS to
from his home and to thereby cause C.A.’s parents to divorce, because
of the religious beliefs and practices of C.A’s family. [FN 12] While Weir and Karen claim that C.A.’s
allegations are too vague to withstand dismissal under 12(b)(6), C.A has
alleged all of the necessary facts: the who, what, when, why and how. No more is required at this stage.” Brokaw
v. Mercer County, 235 F.3d 1000 (7th
Weir and Karen seek cover in the various proceedings instituted as a result of
their complaint: a formal petition for adjudication of wardship, a court
hearing, investigatory conferences held by the DCFS, adjudication of wardship
by the court, and a dispositional hearing by the court, seemingly arguing that
because a court determined that C.A. should remain in foster care, that
demonstrates that their complaints of neglect were justified. But, assuming that Weire, Karen and Deputy
Sheriff James Brokaw knew the allegations of child neglect were false, then
these proceedings actually weaken their case because that means they succeeded
in the earlier stages of their conspiracy –they created upheaval in C.A’s
family by having him removed from his home and by subjected his family to
governmental interference. Moreover, as
we have held in the criminal context, ‘[i]f police officers have been
instrumental in the plaintiff’s continued confinement or prosecution, they
cannot escape liability by pointing to the decisions of prosecutors or grand
jurors or magistrates to confine or prosecute him.’ Jones v. City of Chicago,
856 F.2d 985, 994 (7th Cir.1988).” Brokaw
v. Mercer County, 235 F.3d 1000 (7th
WICCA / WICCAN A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RELIGION?
Wiccan and other Neopagan groups have
been recognized by governments in the US and Canada and given tax-exempt
status. Wiccan priests and priestesses
have been given access to penitentiaries in both countries, and the privilege
of performing handfastings/marriages. On
March 15, 2001,
the list of religious preferences in the United States Air Force Personnel Data
System (MilMod) was augmented to include: Dianic Wicca, Druidism, Gardnerian
Wicca, Pagan, Seax Wicca, Shamanism, and Wicca.
Judge J. Butzner of the Fourth Circuit
Federal Appeals Court confirmed the Dettmer
v Landon decision (799F 2nd 929) in 1986. He said: “We agree with the District
Court that the doctrine taught by the Church of Wicca
is a religion.” Butzner J. 1986 Fourth Circuit. A case was brought in 1983 in the U.S.
District Court in Michigan. The court found that 3 employees
of a prison had restricted an inmate in the performance of his Wiccan rituals. This “deprived
him of his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion and his
Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws.” Dettmer
vs. Landon: concerns the rights of a Wiccan inmate in a
penitentiary. Lamb’s chapel v. Center
District: concerns the rental of school
facilities after hours by a religious group.
It is abundantly clear that none of the State Defendants can claim that
one’s First Amendment right was not clearly established.
“MANDATED REPORTERS” STATE ACTORS?
“As the district court correctly found,
insofar as the Hospital was acting in the latter capacity – as part of the reporting and enforcement
machinery for CWA, a government agency charged with detection and
prevention of child abuse and neglect – the
Hospital was a state actor.” “[C]onduct that is formally ‘private’ may
become so entwined with governmental policies or so impregnated with a
governmental character as to become subject to the constitutional limitations
placed upon state action . . . In certain instances the actions of private
entities may be considered to be infused with ‘state action’ if those private
parties are performing a function public or governmental in nature and which
would have to be performed by the Government but for the activities of the
private parties. Perez v. Sugarman, 499 F2d 761, 764-65 (2d Cir. 1974)(quoting Evans
v. Newton, 382 U.S. 296, 299
(1966)” Mora P. v. Rosemary McIntyre, (Case No.: 98-9595) 2nd
CAN THE STATE SHIELD A “STATE ACTOR”
FROM LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 1983?
No they cannot. State-conferred immunity cannot shield a
state actor form liability under § 1983.
See Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 284 n. 8 (1980)
(“Conduct by persons acting under color of state law which is wrongful under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 … cannot be immunized by state law.”) [cite omitted]. Indeed, a regime that allowed a state
immunity defense to trump the imposition of liability under § 1983 would emasculate
the federal statute.
Section 1983 imposes liability on anyone who, under color of state
law, deprives a person of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws. K & A Radiologic Tech. Servs., Inc.
v. Commissioner of the Dep’t of Health, 189 F.3d 273, 280 (2nd Cir
1999) (quoting Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340 !997). “[T]he core purpose of § 1983 is ‘to provide
compensatory relief to those deprived of their federal rights by state
actors’.” Hardy v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 164
F.3d 789, 795 (2nd Cir. 1999) (quoting Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 141
(1988)). “The traditional
definition of acting under color of state law requires that the defendant in a
§ 1983 action have exercised power possessed by virtue of state law and made
possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state
(quoting, inter alia, West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S.
42, 49 (1988)) (other citations and internal quotation marks omitted)