You are on page 1of 165

FamilyVsState.org > Know Your Family Rights Handbook .

htm
Subj: New Handbook to protect children and parents from CPS abuse and their cons
titutional rights.
Date: 2/21/04 4:01:44 PM Mountain Standard Time
From: ctDCFwatch@snet.net To: lifesavein@aol.com, File: 8x11.doc (187392 byte
s) DL Time (28800 bps): < 2 minutes
This my HTM rendering of this excellent work of Written by:
Thomas and Aimee Dutkiewicz - Connecticut DCF Watch ctDCFwatch@snet.net
and New England Parent Advocacy Network Weemom2002@yahoo.com
and they graciously sent to me to make available for you to see. Please print f
reely and use!
I have been in the tedious process of formatting this htm form to equal their wo
rd doc file's appearance -- and insert active links for referencing and documen
ting! If you notice any mistakes, please notify me: TLR@LifeSave.org . Thanks.
- tlr 2/21/04 (edited more 2/26/04, 2/29/04)

CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
AND THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
“Know your rights before you talk to anyone from CPS, they won’t tell you your right
s.
CPS can’t do anything without your consent”
A guide to protect the constitutional rights of both parents and children.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said it best, “The govern
ment’s interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children f
rom physical abuse, but also protecting children’s interest in the privacy and dig
nity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents.”
Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999).
Written by:
Thomas Dutkiewicz
Connecticut DCF Watch
ctDCFwatch@snet.net

Aimee Dutkiewicz
New England Parent Advocacy Network
Weemom2002@yahoo.com

IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR CPS TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION AND INTERVIEW A CHILD ON
PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES OR PROBABLE CAUSE.
The decision in the case of Doe et al, v. Heck et al (No. 01-3648, 200
3 US App. Lexis 7144) will affect the manner in which law enforcement and child
protective services investigations of alleged child abuse or neglect are conduct
ed. The decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found that this practice,
i.e. the “no prior consent” interview of a child, will ordinarily constitute a “clear
violation” of the constitutional rights of parents under the 4th and 14th Amendmen
ts to the U.S. Constitution. According to the Court, the investigative intervie
w of a child constitutes a “search and seizure” and, when conducted on private prope

rty without “consent, a warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances,” such an
interview is an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the rights of th
e parent, child, and, possibly the owner of the private property.
The mere possibility of danger does not constitute an emergency or exi
gent circumstance that would justify a forced warrantless entry and a warrantles
s seizure of a child. Hurlman v. Rice, (2nd Cir. 1991) A due-process violation
occurs when a state-required breakup of a natural family is founded solely on a “b
est interests” analysis that is not supported by the requisite proof of parental u
nfitness. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, (1978)

PREFACE
This is only a guide to your constitutional protections in the context
of an investigation of alleged child abuse and neglect by Child Protective Serv
ices (“CPS”). Every state has variances of CPS in one form or another. Some are ca
lled DCF, DHS, DSS, DCYS, DCFS, HRS, CYS and FIA, collectively known as “CPS” for th
e purposes of this handbook. The material in this handbook should be supplement
ed by your own careful study of the 4th and 14th Amendment and other Constitutio
nal protections that are guaranteed even in the context 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 infr
inge upon the rights of both parents and children. As you read this handbook, y
ou 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 ar
e unlawful and unconstitutional under the law. Contrary 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 lo
se 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 19
85 civil rights lawsuit. If the police assisted CPS in that deprivation of righ
ts, they also lose immunity and can be sued for assisting CPS in the violation o
f both yours and your child’s rights when they illegally abduct your children or e
nter your home without probable cause or exigent circumstances which are require
d under the warrant clause of the 14th Amendment.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
The authors of this book are not attorneys and do not pretend to be at
torneys. The authors were victims of a false report and were falsely accused by
DCF in Connecticut without conducting a proper investigation. The authors foug
ht back for 8-months against this corrupt organization whose order of the day wa
s to deny them their 4th, 6th and 14th Amendment rights and to fabricate false c
harges without evidence. DCF’s charges and petition to the court was nothing more
than baseless allegations, never evidence. DCF withdrew the fraudulent petitio
n on December 18, 2002 admitting they had no evidence. The fact of the matter i
s that they never had any evidence but abused the authors and their children for
an 8-month period. As a direct result of the false charges and with manufactur
ing of evidence and violating the authors 1st, 4th, 6th, 9th and 14th Amendment
rights, the authors filed a lawsuit in January 2003 in Federal Court in the Dist
rict of Connecticut (3:03-cv-109AVC). There are 28 Defendants in this civil act
ion and the authors are representing them selves Pro se. The authors have never
been convicted of any child abuse or neglect nor are there any investigations o
n going. The authors have three children, a 16-year old and 11-year old twins.

The author’s goals are that not another child is illegally abducted from
their family and that CPS and juvenile judges start using common sense before r
ushing to judgment and to conduct their investigations the same as do the police
in order to be constitutionally correct and legal and that CPS MUST by law comp
ly 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.
INTRODUCTION
You as a parent or care giver MUST know your rights and be totally inf
ormed what you have a legal right to have and to express, whether you are a pare
nt caught up in a very oppressive, abusive and many times unlawful actions of CP
S or if you have never been investigated by CPS. Many individuals come to the w
rong conclusion that the parents must have been abusive or neglectful in order f
or CPS to investigate, this is just a myth. The fact of the matter is that over
80% of the calls that are called in to CPS are false and bogus.
Another myth is that CPS can conduct an investigation in your home wit
hout your consent and speak to your child without your consent. CPS employees w
ill lie to you and tell you they do not need your consent. The fact of the matt
er is they absolutely need your consent to come in your home and speak with your
children. If there is no “exigent circumstances” (imminent danger) to your childre
n 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 child
ren. In fact it is illegal and you can sue the social worker and the police who
assist them and they both lose immunity from being sued.
If CPS lies to the AAG and the Judge in order to get a warrant/order a
nd you can prove it, that also is a 4th and 14th Amendment rights violation whic
h is a civil rights violation under § 1983 and conspiracy against rights covered u
nder § 1985. If a CPS official knocks on your door and has no legal warrant and y
ou 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, thr
eatening and intimidation tactics even if the police only got the door open so C
PS official can gain entry. Both can be sued.
Remember, CPS officials will not tell you your rights; in fact they ar
e going to do everything in their power including lying to you, threatening you
with police presence telling you that you have to let them in. The police may e
ven threaten you to let CPS in because you are obstructing an investigation. Ma
ny police officers do not realize that CPS MUST comply with the warrant clause o
f the 14th Amendment or be sued for violating it.
CPS does not have a legal right to conduct an investigation of allege
d child abuse or neglect in a private home without your consent. In fact removi
ng a child from your home without your consent even for several hours is a “seizur
e” under federal law. Speaking to your children without your consent is also a “sei
zure” under the law. If CPS cannot support a warrant and show that the child is i
n immanent danger along with probable cause, CPS cannot enter your home and spea
k with your children. Remember, anonymous calls into CPS are NEVER probable cau
se under the Warrant Clause. And even if they got a name and number from the re
porter 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 to see if he or s
he 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, someon
e wanting to get revenge so CPS needs to show due diligence as do police to get

“Does your husband y ell at the children?” your response could be once in a while. Removing a child from a safe home is more harmful then most a lleged allegation as stated by many judges. SECTION 1 NEVER EVER TRUST ANYONE FROM CPS You have to under stand that CPS will not give you or your spouse a Mir anda warning nor do they have to. “Does he yell at you and argue with you. All CPS agencies all across the country have a much exaggerat ed view of their power. “When the father drinks. If your spouse gets charged with anything. If CPS shows up at your door and tells you th ey need to speak with you and your children. And what you think is abuse or neglect is or is not. They will lie and say they have to . For example. mark my word. instead show them the children are not in imminent danger and th at they are fine. Something similar happened to the authors where DCF employees lied in front of the judge and said the husband was a victim of domestic violence even t hough all 5 members of the family stated clearly that there was never any domest ic violence. they could co me back with an unlawful and unconstitutional warrant even though your children are not in imminent danger.” The next question is. Then they ask. So if a spouse gets the bright idea and lies and mak es things up. CPS routine ly will take what you say out of context and actually lie in their reports in or der to have a successful prosecution of their case. The husband would like to know when this occurred because he wasn’t there. “Does your husband drink alcoho l?” Your response could be “yes he has several drinks a week. Remember. they lied to the judge. We will discuss this in further detail on what CPS and the police can do and not do. CPS could care less about your rights or your children’s const itutional rights. wrong. The best advice we can off er is before letting any CPS official in if you choose to do so is to tell them you want your attorney there when they come and schedule a time for that.” Now let’s translate tho se benign responses and see what CPS may right in her paperwork. you should bring your children to the door but never open it. But before they leave. DCF will lie to you.sworn statements. What you say will more then likely not be written down the way you sai d it or meant it. you are probable going to get charged w ith allowing it to happen. You also need to know if the focus of t he investigation is on your spouse or significant other you may think you may no t be charged with anything and that you are the non-offending spouse. as did DCF with us. Never give them a chance to falsify the record or twist your words. Tell that to the half dozen social workers sitting in jail in California. Every thing CPS sees and hears is written down and eventually given to the AAG for your possible prosecution. CP S has a totally different definition. That definition is what ever they want it to be. They have an end game in mi ne and they will misrepresent the facts and circumstances surrounding what may o r may not have happened. the CPS worker asks the wife.” This is a far cry on what really took place in that conversation. CPS will not put anything exculpatory in the record so any one that rea ds her notes will read that the house was a mess and cluttered. they will tell you they can do anyth ing they want and they have total immunity. If you do not at least show them your children. he yells at children and wife and wife is a victim of domestic violence . Even if you were sick or injured and hadn’t had a chance to straighten anythi ng out. he/she is also confessing that he allowed what ever he/she alleges . you have the legal right to deny th em entry. They will also misrepresent the condition of your home. Your response could be “yes we argue sometimes and he may raise his voice.

” The social worker’s second argument. or any other agent of the state. and thus can be conducted without either a warr ant or probable cause to believe that a child is at risk of imminent harm. “the Fourth Amendment was not applicable to t he activities of their social worker employees.” The Court went on to rule. the 4th Amendment is applicable to DCF investigators in t he context of an investigation of alleged abuse or neglect as are all “government officials.” The Court also stated “The Fourth Amendment’s p rohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies whenever an investigato r. the Fourth Amendment applies to them. Erie County Dept.” (Emphasis ad ded) The social worker’s first argument. are met by a closed door. 3:01-cv-7588.) The Court again disagreed and ruled: “There is nothing i nherently unusual or dangerous about cluttered premises. SECTION 2 ARE ALL CPS WORKERS IN THE UNITED STATES SUBJECT TO THE 4TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT? Yes they are. In this case a rational jury co uld find that ‘not evidence points to the opposite conclusion’ and a lack of ‘sufficie nt exigent circumstances to relieve the state actors here of the burden of obtai ning a warrant. res ponds to an alleged instance of child abuse. They are trained to lie to you in order to get in any way they can and this comes from interviewing employees at D CF.” The court disagreed and ruled: “Despite the defendant’s exaggerated view o f their powers. Even if you’re not guilty and you agree to go through some horse and pony show. created an ‘emergency situati on’ that led Darnold and Brown reasonably to believe the Walsh children were in da nger of imminent harm. They argued. of Job a nd Family Services. If household ‘clutter’ justifies warrant less e ntry and threats of removal of children and arrest or citation of their parents. a DCFS employee. shot down by the court. That is used against you as if y ou admitted to it. and the p laintiff’s attempt to leave. even absent voluntary consent. as it does to all other of ficers and agents of the state whose request to enter. Remember CPS has no statutory authority to enter your home when no crime has been committed. or dependency.” They state. Th ey point to: the anonymous complaint about clutter on the front porch. the “Defendants argue their entry into the home. T hey point principally to § 2151.” The social workers claimed. Do not sign anything or agree to anything.” This issue is brought out best in Walsh v. (Thus is the old “emergency” excuse that has been used for y ears by social workers. the defendants contend that Ohio’s statutory framework for learning about and investigation allegations of ch ild abuse and neglect supersede their obligations under the Fourth Amendment. be it a police officer. was reasonable under the circumstances.421 of the Ohio Revised code as authority for thei . however benign or well-in tentioned. “entri es into private homes by child welfare workers involve neither searches nor seiz ures under the Fourth Amendment. and that the situation was an “emergency. “Against these fundamental rights. shot down by the court. “They have fa iled to show that any exigency that justifies warrantless entry was necessary to protect the welfare of the plaintiff’s children. neglect. few families are secure and few homes are safe from unwelcome and unjustified i ntrusion by state officials and officers. the defendants argue. The social work ers then argued that there are exceptions to the Fourth Amendment. much less anything abou t such vaguely described conditions that could manifest imminent or even possibl e danger or harm to young children. The social workers argued.come in or you have to comply. and that supersedes the Fourth Amend ment. These circumstances. The social workers then argued that they are obligated under law to in vestigate any reported case of child abuse.

” The police officers. Any g overnment official (CPS) can be held to know that their office does not give the m unrestricted right to enter people’s homes at will. “had the information been more alarming. 9th Cir. Chandler and Kish of qualified immunity are therefor e denied. claimed that they couldn’t be sued because they thought the social workers were not subject to the Fourth Amendment. The Court disagreed and ruled: “The defendant’s argument that the duty to investigate created by § 2151. and they were just helping the social workers. “the facts in this case are noteworthy for the abse nce of emergency.421(A)(1)(b ).” And now the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals defines the law: “In our circui t. There likewise can be no doubt that occasions arise calling for immediate response. c laiming qualified immunity because “they had not had training in Fourth Amendment law. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case.” No one was in distress. this would be a different case.421(F)(1) exempts them from the Fourth Amendment mis ses the mark because. conducted without a search warrant and without a special exigency. not having received a report described in § 2151.” This is the old “mandatory reporter” excuse.” In other words. Floyd. But those instances are the exception. one to which we have no occasion to speak. they were not.” The court did not agree that the social worker and the police officer had “qualified immunity” and said. Further more.” The Court continues: “The anonymous pho ne call in this case did not constitute a ‘report’ of child abuse or neglect. conducting an investigation pursuant to § 2151. Pierce county (797 F. interrogation of a child. a child welfare investigation case. ( 1999) “involves whether a social worker and a police officer were entitled to qual ified immunity. Chandler and Kish. even without prior judicial approval. The Court disagreed a nd ruled: “That subjective basis for their ignorance about and actions in violatio n of the fourth Amendment does not relieve them of the consequences of that igno rance and those actions.r warrantless entry into and search of the plaintiff’s home. shot down by the court. That statute imposes a duty on certain designated professionals and persons who work with children o r provide child care to report instances of apparent child abuse or neglect. PARENTS HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE BY CPS AND THE POLICE.” THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT SAID.” And he should have known better. We held in White v. claimed that they were immune from liability. Calabretta v. Other wise child welfare wor kers would have a free pass into any home in which they have an anonymous report or poor housekeeping. thus per ception that children may be at some risk. overcrowding.” The social worker’s third argument. A reasona ble official would understand that they could not enter the home without consent or a search warrant. not because he perceived any imminent danger of harm.421(F)(1). “The police officer was there to back u p the social worker’s insistence on entry against the mother’s will. for a coerced entry into a home to investigate suspected child a buse. and insufficient medical care and. 1986). 2d 812 (9th Cir. had there been reason to fear imminent harm to a child. Brown. a reasonable official would have known that the law barred this entry. because they thought the Fourth Amendment did not bind them . and could not have been. The Court continues with their chastisement of the social workers: “Ther e 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. and strip search of a child. they couldn’t be sued for their “mistake. had the social worker or police off icer been alarmed.” The so cial workers. that ‘i .” The Court then lowers the boom by stating: “The claims of defendants Darnold. Darnold and Brown.

In North Hudson DYFS v.) The Court’s reasoning for this ruling was simple and straight forward: “Th e reasonable expectation of privacy of individuals in their homes includes the i nterests 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.” The Court went on to say . not to protect the go vernment from the people. “[I]n context of a seizure of a child by the State during an abuse investigation . 2001. “[a]bsent some tangible evidence of abuse or neglect. After reviewing t he briefs of all the parties. the police. . the parents have the constitutional right to exercise their children’s and their 4th and 5th Amendment protections and should just say n o to social workers especially when they attempt to coerce or threaten to call t he police so they can conduct their investigation. .” .” (The Constitution and the Bill of Righ ts were written to protect the people from the government. … The fourth Amendment preserves the ‘right of the people to be secure in their persons.S. If a court issues a warrant based on an uncorroborated anonymous tip. 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. v. or federal government.K. The Co urt explained. 2000. absent exigent circumstances.” Tenenbaum v. the Courts do not authorize fishing expeditions into citizens’ houses. the warrant will not survive a judicial challenge in the higher courts. filed December 18. it is not based on “best interest of the child” or persona l feeling. Wisconsin. 2001.” February 14. 193 F. to stay DY FS illegal entry that was granted by the lower court because DYFS in their infin ite wisdom thought it was their right to go into the Koehler home because the ch ildren were not wearing socks in the winter or sleep in beds. The United States Supreme Court has held that courts may not use a d ifferent standard other than probable cause for the issuance of such orders. Anonymous tips are never probable cause. “[m]ere parroting of the phrase ‘best interest of the child’ without supporting fact s and a legal basis is insufficient to support a Court order based on reasonable ness or any other ground. 602 (2n d Cir.3d 581. state. a court o rder is the equivalent of a warrant. or government agency . Williams.’ The principle that government officials cannot coerce entr y 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 an y reasonable officer would know it. 868 (1987). or local. Iowa district Court for Polk County.” In other words. 1999).” 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 w ill.t was settled constitutional law that.” PARROTING OF THE PHRASE “BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD” WITHOUT SUPPORTING FACTS OR A L EGAL BASIS IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A WARRANT OR COURT ORDER TO ENTER A HOME. the appellate court ruled that the order to invest igate the Koehler home was in violation of the law and must be reversed. a juvenile judges decision on whether or not to issue a warrant is a legal one. Koehler Family. the people have the const itutional right to hold the government accountable when is does deny its citizen s their rights under the law even if it is CPS. F. In other words. 483 U. Id. police coul d not enter a dwelling without a warrant even under statutory authority where pr obable cause existed. And within those documents. Gri ffin v. houses … ‘without limiting that right to one kind of government official. “A social worker is not entitl ed to sacrifice a family’s privacy and dignity to her own personal views on how pa rents ought to discipline their children. the A ppellate court granted the emergency application on February 6.

We held in White v.’ 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. Floyd. The decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found that this pract ice. and the anonymous tip claiming bruises was i n the case insufficient to establish special exigency. Constitution. Lexis 7144) will affect the manner in which law enforcement and child protective services investigations of alleged child abuse or neglect are conduct ed.3d 1126 (9t . The 9th Circuit further opined in Wallis v. The decision in the case of Doe et al. Good v. whether the child is on private or public early stages of an invest danger. Id.” “we conclude that the Warrant clause must be complied with. “In our circuit. by d efinition. will ordinarily constitute a “c lear violation” of the constitutional rights of parents under the 4th and 14th Ame ndments to the U. F.THE U. as noted by the Second Circuit. Iowa district Court for Polk County. absent exigent circumstances. 602 (2nd Cir. possibly the owner of the private property.3d 581. 202 F. Good holds that a search warrant or exigent circumstances.S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 7TH CIRCUIT RECENTLY RULED THAT CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATIONS HELD ON PRIVATE PROPERTY UNCONSTITUTIONAL . According to the Court. 189 F. Heck et al (No. the investigative int erview of a child constitutes a “search and seizure” and. 200 3 US App.3d 808 (9th Cir. ‘The [California] regulations they cite require social workers to resp ond to various contacts in various ways. 01-3648.’). none of the exceptions to the Warrant Clause apply in this situation. 1999) C alabretta also cites various cases form other jurisdictions for its conclusion.2d 1087 (3rd Cir. i. . police could not enter a dwelling without a warrant even under statutory authority where probable cause existed. v. that ‘it was settled constitutional law that. time enough to apply to a magistrate for an ex parte removal order. v.” “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 inve stigation.. 342N. probable cause.S. a reasonable official would have known that the law bar red this entry. 1989) held that a social worker and police officer were not entitled to qualified immunity for in sisting on entering her house against the mother’s will to examine her child for b ruises. 193 F.W. from w to commence the interview property. a warrant. 855 (Iowa 1983) (holding the exigent circums tances exception to the Warrant Clause only applies when ‘an immediate major crisi s in the performance of duty afforded neither time nor opportunity to apply to a magistrate. such as a ne ed to protect a child against imminent danger of serious bodily injury. But none of the regulations cited say t hat the social worker may force her way into a home without a search warrant in the absence of any emergency.K. Any government official can be held to know that their office d oes not give them an unrestricted right to enter peoples’ homes at will. child. Williams. Considering that one critical purpose of the igation is to determine whether or not the child is in ho seems to require a high threshold level of evidence of a child. See State v. Hatter. 891 F. Spencer. Second. 1999 ). a court order is the equivalent of a warrant. when conducted on private property without “consent. Pierce County a child welfare investigation case. and.’ Tenenbaum v. ‘[I]n context of a seizure of a child by the State during an abuse investigation .e. . or exigent circumstances. and if so. was nece ssary for an entry without consent.’ because there is. Dauphin County Social Servs. i ncluding ‘exigent circumstances coupled with probable cause. First.” suc h an interview is an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the rights of the parent.2d 851. the “no prior consent” interview of a child.’ Calabretta v.

This idea of not complying to the 4th and 14t h Amendment is so impregnated in their statutes. Many of their policie s are unlawful and contradictory to the Constitution.5 at the hands of parents per 100. Otherwise. that ‘[b]ecause the swing of every pendulum brings with it potential adverse consequences. neglect. We can tell you stories for hours where CPS employees committed crimin al acts and were prosecuted and went to jail and/or was sued for civil rights vi olations. it is important to emphasize that in the area of child ab use. Perpetrators of Maltreatment While In Custody of: Physical Abuse Sexual Abuse Neglect Medical Neglect Fatalities CPS 160 112 410 14 6. Ill-considered and improper governmental action may create significant injury where no problem of any kind previously existed.4 children die at the hands of the agencies that are s upposed to protect. and only 1. 6. These numbers include D CF in Connecticut. at 1130-1131. DCF has unlawful polices giving workers permission to coerce. court documents. The fa ct that the suspected crime may be heinous – whether it involves children or adult s – does not provide cause for the state to ignore the rights of the accused or an y other parties. DCF is the “moving force” behind the on going violations of federal law an d violations of the Constitution.’ Id. CPS perpetrates more abuse. ill egal and unconstitutional. crossed state lines impersonating pol ice and then kidnapping children and were prosecuted for that and including a nu mber of cases were the case worker killed the child.” This was the case involving DCF in Connecticut. as with the investigation and prosecution of all crimes. CPS workers have lied in reports. it affects all and what they do and they take on the persona of the feeling of exaggerated power over parents and that they are totally immune and can do basi cally do anything they want including engaging in deception. 2000). governmental failure to abide by constitutional constraints may ha ve deleterious long-term consequences for the child and. It is sickening on how many children are subject to abuse. practices and customs . asked others to li e. Imagine that. the state is const rained by the substantive and procedural guarantees of the Constitution. In cases of alleged child abuse. This happens thousands of times every day i n the United States where the end justifies the mean even if it is unlawful.4 Parents 59 13 241 12 1.000 children in the United States. and sexual abuse and kills more children th . intimidate and to threatened innocent famil ies 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 d anger is present. . kidnapped children without court order. policies. These numb ers come from The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) in Washingt on.h Cir.000 children. misrepresentation o f the facts and lying to the judge. neglect and even killed at the hands of Child Protective Services.5 Number of Cases per 100. for the entire family. indeed. serious injustices may result.

the Ninth Ci rcuit held that the Fourth Amendment applies just as much to a child abuse inves tigation as it does to any criminal or other governmental investigation. If a social worker says. DCF’s policy clearly tells the social worker that they can threaten parents even if the parents assert their 4th Amendment rights. and the governments that employed them settled this civil rights case for $150. this would be intimid ation. All warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable. But the second part of the rule is the most important in this context. Probable Cause & Exigent Circumstances The Fourth Amendment does not put a barrier in the way of a social wor ker who has reliable evidence that a child is in imminent danger. ANY type of communication.3d 808 (1999). Upon remand f or the damages phase of the trial. And police officers are not exempt from the requirement even if all they do is get the front door open for the social worker.en parents in the United States. CPS nation wide is guilty for more human rights violations and death of children then the homes they took them out of. SECTION 4 WHEN IS CONSENT NOT CONSENT? If a police officer says. the social workers. Floyd. b ut to allow entry negates any claim that the entry was lawfully gained through t he channel of consent. They are not exempt from its rules if they are accompanied by a poli ce officer. SECTION 3 THE FOURTH AMENDMENT’S IMPACT ON CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATIONS. If the citizens of this country hold CPS to th e same standards that they hold parents to. which held that social workers who. This statement came in a case. If a social worker says. “I will get a warrant from the judge or I will ca ll the police if you do not let me in” negate consent. but also protecting children’s interest in the priva cy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their p arents. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said it best. When are the judges going to wake up to see that they are sending chil dren to their death and a life of abuse when children are removed from safe home s at the mere opinion of a bunch of social workers.” Calabretta v.000. The general rule is that unreasonable searches and seizures are banned.0 0. the police officers. For example. here is my addres . Contrary to the assumption of hundreds of social workers. if a hot line call comes in and 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 c onsent. no judge should ever put another chi ld in the hands of ANY government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty for mo re harm and death than any human being combined. “The government’s interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse. Social workers are not exempt from the requirements of the Fourth Amendment when they act alone. which conveys the idea to the parent that they have no realistic alternative. coercion and threatening. “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 co nsent. 189 F. in pursuit of a child abuse investigation. invaded a family home without a warrant violate the Fourth amendment rights of both children and parents. “My name is Mildred Smith.

is being locked in his bedroom w ithout food for days at a time. If the government becomes a law-breaker. We the people of the United States are ruled by law. disputes on the Little League field. v. v. For good or ill. I was visiting my grandchildren this morning and I discover ed that one of my grandchildren. A quick verifica tion of the relationship can be made in a variety of ways and once verified. Children are not well served if they are subjected to investigations b ase on false allegations. nosey individuals who are attempting to impose their views on others are turned into maliciously false allegations breathed into a hotline. Anonymous phone calls fail the second part of the twoprong requirement of “exigent circumstances” and “probable cause” for a warrant or order . it teaches the whole people by example. App.2d 477 (Ala. U. and he looked pale and weak to me” –the social worke r certainly has evidence of exigent circumstances and is only one step away from having probable cause. for example.S. In H.S. It is not enough to have information that the children are in some for m of serious danger. Johnny. No warrant shall issue but on probable cause. 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 right s because the evidence in their possession did not satisfy the standard of proba ble cause. Our government is the potent. the court held that an anonymous tip standing alone never amounts to probable cause. The evidence must also pass a test of reliability that our justice system calls probable cause. which is necessary to e stablish probable cause. n eighborhood squabbles. 1992). 438 (1928). not by feelings. would satisfy the legal test of reliability. 483 U. The United States Supreme Court has held that courts may not use a different standard other than p robable cause for the issuance of such orders. it breeds contempt for the law. 612 So.R. 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 rul . child custody battle s. The Calabretta court held the s ame thing. 86 8 (1987). existence of government will be imperiled if it fails to obs erve the law scrupulously.s and phone number. security and liberty alike demand that government officials s hall be subject to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. Olmst ead. as have numerous other decisions. the warrant will not survive a judicial challenge in the higher courts. If the courts allow states and their agencies rule by feelings and not law. This does not seem to a child to be a proper invasion of their person –quite different . Ct. age 5. Little children can be traumatized by investigations in ways that are unintended by the social worker. omnipresent teacher. which have faced the issue directly . In a government of laws. Personal vendettas. State Department of Human Reso urces. revenge. If a court issues a warrant based on an uncorroborated anonymous tip. It invites anarchy. we become a nation without law that makes decisions based on subjectivity and objec tivity. Justice Brandeis. The misuse of anonymous tips is well known. However. Crime is contagious. it is possible that the tipster is an imposter and not the child’s grandmother. The Fourth Amendment itself spells out the evidence required for a warrant or entry order. Anonymous phone calls cannot stand the test of probable cause as defined with in the 14th Amendments and would fail in court on appeal. Griffin v. to a small child all they know is that a strange adult is taking off their clothing while their moth er is sobbing in the next room in the presence of an armed police officer. It inv ites every man to become a law unto himself. from an examination by a doctor when their mother is present and cooperating. “Decency. Since the report has been received over the telephone.S. the informant. The social worker(s) would lose their qualified immunity for their deprivation of rights and can be s ued. 277 U. Anonym ous tips are never probable cause. Wisconsin.

” During the trial several leading national experts testified on the imp act on children of witnessing domestic violence. Effects of Removals of Children and on the Non-offending Parent. It is very dangerous when governmental officials are allowed to have unfettered access to citizens home. Williams. some child protection agencies in the United States appear to be defining exposure to domestic violence as a form of child…Defining witnessing as m altreatment is a mistake. Views of Experts on Effects of Dome stic Violence on Children. U. It is also very dangerous to allow CPS to v iolate the confrontation clause in the 6th Amendment were CPS hides. All citizens have the right to know their accuser/ witness in order to preserve the sanctity of the rule of law and that the Consti tution is the supreme law of the land. Se e also Ex. Doing so ignores the fact that large numbers of child ren in these studies showed no negative development problems and some showed evi dence of strong coping abilities.e of law. Concerned about the risk adult domestic violence poses for children. and hoping for her return …” A child’s sense of time factors in to the extent to which a separation impacts his or her emotional well-being. short per iods of parental absence may seem longer than for older children. Th us. 565-67. “great concern [regarding] ho w increased awareness of children’s exposure [to domestic violence] and associated problems is being used. . He described the typical response of a child separat ed from his parent: “When a young child is separated from a parent unwillingly. he or she shows distress … At first. Dr. It allows those individuals to have a safe haven to file fraudulent reports and CPS aids and abets in this vio lation of fundamental right. waiting. conceals an d covers up the accuser/witness who make report. and defining witnessing domestic violence by children as maltreatment or emotional neglect is a mistake. and the impact on children of b eing removed from the non-offending parent. for younger children whose sense of time is less keenly developed. Case No.: 00cv-2229.S. Automatically defining witnessing as maltreat ment may also ignore battered mother’s efforts to develop safe environments for th eir children and themselves. Then he falls into a sense of despair.S.” Ex. SECTION 5 IS IT ILLEGAL AND AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRACTICE FOR CPS TO REMOVE CHILDREN SOLELY BECAUSE THEY SAW A PARENT WAS A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE? Yes it is illegal and an unconstitutional practice to remove children which results in punishing the children and the non-offending parent. 141b. Judge Weis tein ruled that the practice is unconstitutional and he ordered it stopped. District Court. though still hyper vigil ant. Tr 565-65. This suit challenged the practice of New York’s City’s Administration for Children’s Services of removing the children of battered mothers solely because th e children saw their mothers being beaten by husbands or boyfriends. looking. In a land mark class action suit in the U. Eastern District of New York. Wolf testified that disruptions in the parent-child relationship m ight provoke fear and anxiety in a child and diminish his or her sense of stabil ity and self. District Judge Jack Weinsein ruled on Nicholson v. ARE PARENTS GUILTY OF MALTREATMENT OR EMOTIONAL NEGLECT IF THE CHILD WITNESSES D OMESTIC VIOLENCE? “Not according to Judge Weistein’s ruling and to the leading national experts. the child is very anxious and protests vigorous ly and angrily. Tr. 163 at 866.

their worst nightmare. … is tantamount to pouring salt on an open wound. (1997) Parent’s interest is of “the highest order. Foster care placements can disrupt the child’s contact with community. 122 at 3-4. (2000) A child has a constitutionally protected interest in the companions hip and society of his or her parents. v. 7th Cir. 139 at 5.For those children who are in homes where there is domestic violence.. 10th Cir. It is a criminal matter disguised as a civil matter. Ward v. Washington count y. Parents also have legal standing to sue if CPS violated thei r 4th and 14th Amendment rights. their worst nightmare. what is in effect. There is nothing civil about allegations o f child abuse or neglect. 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. 9th Cir. Stark (Yale New Haven Hospital researcher) asserted that if a child is placed in foster care as a result of domestic violence in the home. You will regr et letting them in your home and speaking with them like the thousands of other parents who have gone through this. Another serious implication of removal is that it introduces children to the foster care system. (1996) You must protect you and your child’s rights. they will leave you alone or you can get your kids back. SECTION 6 DO CHILDREN HAVE LEGAL STANDING TO SUE CPS FOR THEIR ILLEGAL ABDUCTION FROM THEI R HOME AND VIOLATING THEIR 4TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS? Yes they do. Ex. Ex. 8th Cir. through Murphy v. Scan Vo lunteer Services. rep resents a serious infringement upon the rights of both. Pelcovitz stated that “taking a child whose greatest fear is separation from his or her mother and in the name of ‘protecting’ that chil d [by] forcing on them. Dr. Brokaw v. Tr 1596. . which can be much more dangerous and debilitating tha n the home situation. Mercer County. J.” Ex. (1992) State employees who withhold a child from her family infringe on the family’s liberty of familial association.” Tr.” Thomason v. Ask a friend. CPS has no legal right to enter your home or speak to you and your child when there in no imminent danger present. even for a short time. Ex. Children have a Constitutional right to live w ith their parents without government interference. San Jose. They will tell you that what they are involved with is a civil matter not a c riminal matter. Know your choices. children have standing to sue for their removal after they reach th e age of majority. Children in foster care often fail to receive adequate medical care.B. family member or some one at work. school and siblings. Dr. Police do not get involved in civil matters if it truly was one.” And the court recogn izes “the vital importance of curbing overzealous suspicion and intervention on th e part of health care professionals and government officials. … is tantamount to pouring salt on an open wound. Morgan. (1990) The forced separation of parent from child. 139 at 5. K. and that the incidence of abuse and child fatalit y in foster homes is double that in the general population. 122 at 8. They will tell you if you agree to services. Dr.” Ex. what is in effect. Stark testified that foster homes are rarely screened for the presence of violence. Pelcovitz stated that “taking a child whose greatest fear is separat ion from his or her mother and in the name of ‘protecting’ that child [by] forcing o n them. 1562-63.H. Don’t you believe it. 122 at 6. disruption of that bond can be even more traumatic than situations where this is no domestic violence. you can refuse to speak any government official wh ether it is the police or CPS as long as there is an open criminal investigation . Dr. 7th Cir. Inc.

” and the court recognizes “the vit al importance of curbing overzealous suspicion and intervention on the part of h ealth care professionals and government officials. 2000) The private. fundamental liberty interest involved in retaining custod y of one’s child and the integrity of one’s family is of the greatest importance.hhs. do not agree to a drug screen or a psychological evaluation. When the school or doc tor sends records to CPS or allows them to view them with out your permission. Morgan (7th Cir. Your children’s records are protected by FERPA and HIPAA regarding your chi ldren’s educational and medical records. a parent has a liberty interest in familial association and privacy that cannot be violated without adequate pre-d eprivation procedures. through Murphy v.H. K. Inc. If your child school r ecords contain medical records.B. Ward v. 1996) SECTION 8 WARRANTLESS ENTRY . Arapahoe Cty. 530 U. SECTION 7 FAMILY RIGHTS (FAMILY ASSOCIATION) The state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when a fit pare nt is available. J . b oth the sender and receiver violated the law. T ell them they need a lawful warrant to make you do anything. Remember. v.gov/ocr/howtofile privacy. Social workers could not deliberatel y 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 th e child’s mental or physical health. Brokaw v. A child has a constitutionally protected interest in the companionship and society of his or her parent.pdf and a Microsoft Word version http://www. it will come back to be used against you in any possible kangaroo t rial. Dept. Children have a constitutional right to live with their parents without government interference.Refusing them entry is NOT hindering an investigation. 57 (2000). Troxel v.S. of Social Services for Baltimore (4th Cir. 1990) State employee who withholds a child from her family may infringe on t he family’s liberty of familial association. Washington County (10th Cir. Dept. DO NOT si gn anything. They need a lawful warrant like the poli ce under the “warrant clause” in order to seize any records. then HIPAA also applies. it’s a Fourth Ame ndment protection and CPS or the juvenile judge can’t abrogate that right as long as your children are not in imminent danger. Mercer County (7th Cir. We ller v. Granville. (8th Cir. San Jose (9th Cir. 1997) Absent extraordinary circumstances. Scan Volunteer Ser vices. even for a short time (in this case 18 hours).hhs. 1992) Children have standing to sue for their removal after they reach the a ge of majority. 1990) The forced separation of parent from child.gov/ocr/howtofileprivacy . represent a serious infringement upon the rights of both. CPS has no power. You need to file a HIPAA complain t on the sender and the receiver.” Thomason v.doc. Tell them to go packing. 1999) Parent interest is of “the highest order. of Social Services (10 Cir. you only have 180-days from the time you found out about it. a PDF version http://www. Malik v.

Dauphin County Social Services (3rd Cir. Winburn (11th Cir. Searches an d 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. when the false state ments were necessary to the finding of probable cause on which the warrant was b ased. Aponte Matos v. Dempsey (11th Cir. Brokaw v. 1989) The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seiz ures extends beyond criminal investigations and includes conduct by social worke rs in the context of a child neglect/abuse investigation.2d 9th Cir. Toledo Davilla (1st Cir. Yvonne L. 1999) The mere possibility of danger does not constitute an emergency or exi gent circumstance that would justify a forced warrantless entry and a warrantles s seizure of a child. The concern for the privacy. An officer who obtains a war rant through material false statements which result in an unconstitutional seizu re may be held liable personally for his actions under § 1983. the Fourth Amendment parti cularity requirement ensures that the search will be carefully tailored to its j ustifications. Mercer County (7th Cir 2000) Post-deprivation remedies do not provide due process if pre-deprivatio n remedies are practicable.1991) Making false statements made to obtain a warrant. 1992) . o f Human Services (10th Cir. 1991) Police officer and social worker may not conduct a warrantless search or seizure in a suspected child abuse case absent exigent circumstances. 1995) The protection offered by the Fourth Amendment and by our laws does no t exhaust itself once a warrant is obtained. v. absent exigent circumstances. The warrant clause con templates the warrant applicant be truthful: “no warrant shall issue. Defend ants must have reason to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy and that the intrusion is reasonable necessary to alleviate the threat. When a warrant app lication is materially false or made in reckless disregard for the Fourth Amendm ent’s warrant clause. Floyd (9th Cir. There is a req uirement that the police identify themselves to the subject of a search. 1998) SECTION 9 DUE PROCESS Child’s four-month separation from his parents could be challenged under substantive due process. 1990) Children placed in a private foster home have substantive due process right to personal security and bodily integrity. and the property of our citizens continues and is reflected in knock and announce requirements. 929 F. Rice (2nd Cir. Bendiburg v. and will not take on the character of the wide-ranging explorator y searches the Framers of the Constitution intended to prohibit. the s afety. Hurlman v. supported by oath or affirmation. United States v. Becker.” Deliberate falsehood or reckless di sregard for the truth violates the warrant clause. Sham procedures don’t constitute true procedural due pr ocess. A search must not exceed the scope of the search authorized in a warrant. Goodv . By limiting the authorization to search to the specific areas an d things for which there is probable cause to search.Police officers and social workers are not immune for coercing or forc ing entry into a person’s home without a search warrant. New Mexico Dept. but on proba ble cause. violates the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Lenz v. Calabretta v.

Dea rborne (5th Cir. 1997) SECTION 10 SEIZURES (CHILD REMOVALS) Police officers or social workers may not “pick up” a child without an inv estigation or court order. An exparte hearing based on misrepresentation and omissi on does not constitute notice and an opportunity to be heard. protection. Liability may attach when the state has taken custody of a child. even in an emergency situation. through Mur phy v. regard less of whether the child came to stay with a family on his own which was not an officially approved foster family. (10th Cir . (8th Cir. Rubin. 1991) Mother had a clearly established right to an adequate. 2000) Social worker who received a telephone accusation of abuse and threate ned to remove 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 engage d in an arbitrary abuse of governmental power in ordering the father to leave. Nicini v. (8th Cir. Spencer. 1999) When the state deprives parents and children of their right to familia l integrity. the st ate has duties and the failure to perform such duties may create liability under § 1983. a right included in Procedural Due Process. of Public Welfare. Dept.H. of Social Services. K. Mississippi Dept.Arapahoe Cty. and supervision. (9th Cir 1999) . misrepresentation and/or omission is a violation of the Forth Amendment. Croft v. (5th Cir. Morgan. Whisman V. a parent has a liberty interest in familial association and privacy that cannot be violated without adequate pre-d eprivation procedures. and it is irrele vant that a parent could have hired counsel to force a hearing. A 17-day period prior to the hearing was not prompt hearing. Malik v. Children and Youth Services (3rd Cir. Morra (3rd Cir. Norfleet v. 1999) Plaintiff’s clearly established right to meaningful access to the courts would be violated by suppression of evidence and failure to report evidence. absent an emergency. Ram v. Arkans as Dept. Procurement of an order to seize a child through distortion. prompt post-dep rivation hearing. Morris v. Rinehart. Westmoreland Cty. (9th Cir. of Human Services. (7th Cir. Parental consent is required to take children for medical exams. 1990) When the State places a child in a foster home it has an obligation to provide adequate medical care. 1997) Absent extraordinary circumstances. Parents may assert their children’s Fourth A mendment claim on behalf of their children as well as asserting their own Fourte enth Amendment claim. the burden is on the State to initi ate prompt judicial proceedings for a post-deprivation hearing. 1993) Children may not be removed from their home by police officers or soci al workers without notice and a hearing unless the officials have a reasonable b elief that the children were in imminent danger. Ch rissy v. or an overriding order from the court after pa rents have been heard. 1997) Plaintiff’s were arguable deprived of their right to procedural due proc ess because the intentional use of fraudulent evidence into the procedures used by the state denied them the fight to fundamentally fair procedures before havin g their child removed.When the state places a child into state-regulated foster care. Wallis v.

800.Ct.S. State law providing immunity from suit for child abuse investigators has no application to suits under § 1983. a “seizure” of a person is a situati on in which a reasonable person would feel that he is not free to leave. Brokaw v.S. then the e must be particularized information with respect to a specific person.C.S. Hodari. This re quirement cannot be undercut or avoided simply by pointing to the fact that coin cidentally there exists probable cause to arrest or to search or to seize anothe r person or to search a place where the person may happen to be. Yabarra v. (7th Cir. Illi nois.S. 1st Cir. Good v. 2000) For purposes of the Fourth Amendment. 621 (1991) Where the standard for a seizure or search is probable cause. (3rd Cir. Wallis v. 85 (1979) An officer who obtains a warrant through material false statements whi ch result in an unconstitutional seizure may be held liable personally for his a ctions under § 1983. Melo. Wooley v. 44 U. 2000) Defendant should’ve investigated further prior to ordering seizure of ch ildren based on information he had overheard. rice. (9th Cir. Toledo Davilla. Hurlman v. Merc er County. 1999) If the law was clearly established at the time the action occurred. Da uphin County Social Services. California v. Harlow v. 457 U. Persons may not be “seized” without a court order or being placed under arrest. Seizure is unco nstitutional without court order or exigent circumstances. (2nd Cir. Defendants m ust have reason to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy and that t he intrusion is reasonably necessary to alleviate the threat. Hafer v. Court order obtained based on knowingly false information violates Fourth Amendment. Spencer. a police officer is not entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity base on good faith since a reasonably competent public official should know the law g overning his or her conduct.Child removals are “seizures” under the Fourth Amendment. 1991) Police officer and social worker may not conduct a warrantless search or seizure in a suspected abuse case absent exigent circumstances. (S. City of Baton Rouge. Fitzgerald. 1991) State law cannot provide immunity from suit for Federal civil rights v iolations. seizure of the child was not objectively reasonable and violated the clearly established Fourth Amendment ri ghts of the child. 818 (1982) Immunity is defeated if the official took the complained of action wit . and als o either actually yields to a show of authority from police or social workers or is physically touched by police. 1998) SECTION 11 IMMUNITY Social workers (and other government employees) may be sued for depriv ation of civil rights under 42 U. 1989) Defendants could not lawfully seize child without a warrant or the exi stence of probable cause to believe child was in imminent danger of harm. Where police were not informed of any abuse of the child prior to arriving at caretak er’s home and found no evidence of abuse while there. 499 U. (5th Cir. Searches and seiz ures in investigation of a child neglect or child abuse case at a home are gover ned by the same principles as other searches and seizures at a home. Aponte Matos v. § 1983 if they are named in their ‘official an d individual capacity’.

or the official violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable pe rson would have known. (10th Cir. 1991) Police officer was not entitled to absolute immunity for her role in p rocurement of court order placing child in state custody where thee was evidence officer spoke with the social worker prior to social worker’s conversation with t he 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. Dept.h malicious intention to cause a deprivation of rights. Maggio. (1994) Social workers were not entitled to absolute immunity for pleadings fi led to obtain pick-up order for temporary custody prior to formal petition being filed. criminal complaints and applications. (9th 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 searc h warrant or in presenting evidence to a prosecutor on which the prosecutor base d his or her charge against the plaintiff. Biggers. Social workers are not en titled to qualified immunity on claims they deceived judicial officers in obtain ing a custody order or deliberately or recklessly incorporated known falsehoods into their reports.Ct. 1986) Defendants were not entitled to prosecutorial immunity where complaint was base on failure to investigate. Social workers were not entitled to absolute immunity where department policy was for social workers to report findings of neglect or abuse to other au thorities for further investigation or initiation of court proceedings. 1990) Police officer is not entitled to absolute immunity. S. and an inordinate de lay in filing court proceedings. Use of information kn own to be false is not reasonable. Offic er’s acts were investigative and involved more that merely carrying out a judicial order. Malley v. No qualified immun ity is available for incorporating allegations into the report or application wh ere official had no reasonable basis to assume the allegations were true at the time the document was prepared. McCord v. because such actions did not aid in the present ation of a case to the juvenile court. Malik v. Where a statute authorizes o fficial conduct which is patently violation of fundamental constitutional princi ples. (5th Cir. City of Portland. (8th Cir. only qualified im munity. Grossman v. detaining minor child. 1991) Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity for conducting warr antless search of home during a child abuse investigation where exigent circumst . Social workers investigating claims of child abuse are entitled only to qualified immun ity. Young v. 1989) Defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity or summary judgment b ecause he should’ve investigated further prior to ordering seizure of children bas ed on information he had overheard. (2nd Cir. to claim that he caused plaintiff to be unlawfully arrested by presentin g judge with an affidavit that failed to establish probable cause. (5th Cir. Vance. Assisting in the use of information known to be false in order to further an investigation is not subject to absolute immunity. Hurlman v. Whisman v. (1st Cir. Tunnel. Bri ggs. Rice. Snell v. of Social Services. 1997) Case worker who intentionally or recklessly withheld potentially excul patory information from an adjudicated delinquent or from the court itself was n ot entitled to qualified immunity. (10 Cir. Germany v. an officer who enforces that statute is not entitled to qualified immunity . Rinehart. 1999) Individuals aren’t immune for the results of their official conduct simp ly because they were enforcing policies or orders. Arapahoe Cty. and acts of deliberate falsity or reckless di sregard of the truth are not entitled to qualified immunity.

. may at some point become sufficiently compelling to sust ain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision . . . and child rearing . . 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. Population Services International. In Pierce v. [emphasis supplied] Maher v. This privacy right encompasses and protects the personal intimacies of the home. There is a basic difference between direct state int erference with a protected activity and state encouragement of an alternative ac tivity consonant with legislative policy . . . Prince v. where decisions as fundamental as whether to bear or beget a child is involved. nothing. and must be narrowly drawn to express on ly those interests. Meyer v. . certai n state interests . req uiring an application of the “compelling interest test. Compelling is. however.ances were not present. 65 (1973) In this case. marriage. . 432 US 464. In Meyer v. While the outer limits of this aspect of privacy have not been marked by the Court. Meyer v. 476-479 (1977) We conclude that the Connecticut regulation does not impinge on the fundamental right recognized in Roe .” Although the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. . Slaton. motherhood. . . 413 US 49. Society of Sisters. .’ [emphasis supplied] The Court continued by explaining that these rights are not absolute and. Society of Sisters . . Neb raska . .. Pie rce v. cf . it is clear that amon g the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government inter ference are personal decisions relating to marriage . Good v. Nebraska. . 431 US 678. . (3rd Cir 1989) Social workers were not entitled to absolute immunity where no court o rder commanded them to place plaintiff with particular foster caregivers. 684-686 (1977) Once again. the Court held that the teacher’s right thus to tea ch and the right of parents to engage in so to instruct their children were with in the liberty of the 14th Amendment . of course. .. procreat ion.” Our prior decisions recognizing a right to privacy guaranteed by the 14th Amendm ent included only personal rights that can be deemed fundamental or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty . (7th Cir. Pierce v. This distinction is implicit in two cases cited in Roe in support of the pregnant woman’s right under the 14th Amendm ent. . . . K. the Court has recognized that one aspect of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendm ent is a “right of personal privacy or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of pr ivacy . the key word. Nebraska. [emphasis supplied] Carey v. Dauphin County Social Services. regulations imposing a burden on it may be justifi ed only by a compelling state interest. Massachusetts.H th rough Murphy v. . in this Court’s decisions intimates that there is an y fundamental privacy right implicit in the concept of ordered liberty to watch obscene movies and places of public accommodation. 1991) SECTION 12 Decisions of the United States Supreme Court Upholding Parental Rights as “Fundamental” Paris Adult Theater v. the Court includes the right of parents to rear children among rig hts “deemed fundamental.. 262 US 390 (192 3). . 268 US 510 (1925). the family. Morgan. . 321 US 158 (1944). . Society of Sisters. and child rearing and education. This right of personal privacy includes the interest and independenc e in making certain kinds of important decisions . family relationships. Roe. . .

. Blackstone. our constitutional system long ago rejec ted any notion that a child is “the mere creature of the State” and. 413 US 455. creates a basis for caution.. the parent’s right to choose private rather than pu blic school education. the incidence of child neglect and abuse cases attests to this. does not in any way promote or strengt hen the concept of educational vouchers... More important. 442 US 584. (1973). 1 W.. and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions. [emphasis supplied] Although the Maher decision unquestionably recognizes parents’ rights as fundament al rights. coupled with the high duty. The Parental Rights an d Responsibilities Act simply reaffirms the right of parents to choose private e ducation as fundamental. We think it abundantly clear that a sta te 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 pu blic. Both cases invalidated substantial restrictions of constitutionally protected li berty interests: in Meyer. The lower Court had ruled that Georgia’s statutory scheme of al lowing 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 pr ocess rights.. Our cases have consistently followed that course. .R. but it is hard ly a reason to discard wholesale those pages of human experience that teach that parents generally do act in the child’s best interest . 268 U. 535 (1925) . The Court ruled: Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of th e family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children.. but not private education.. experience and reality ma y rebut what the law accepts as a starting point. but it does not make the right to receive public funds a fundamental right. the parent’s right to have his child taught a particula r foreign language. The law’s concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a ch ild lacks in maturity. Parham v. The Court held that t he law unreasonably interfered with the liberty of parents and guardians to dire ct the upbringing and education of the children under their control .. 510. experience. in Pierce.the Court relied on Meyer . nor must a state satisfy the compelling interest t est if it chooses not to give private schools state aid. Pierce casts no shadow over a stat e’s power to favor public education by funding it — a policy choice pursued in some States for more than a century . 46 2. The Supreme Court reversed this decision upholding the legal presu mption that parents act in their children’s best interest. therefore. on the contrary .. . Indeed in Norwood v... . As with so many other legal presumptions. 602-606 (1979). we explicitly rejected the argument that Pierce established a “right of private or parochial schools to share with the public schools in state largesse . reasoning that the 14th Amendment’s concept of li berty excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by for cing them to accept instruction from public teachers only.” [emphasi . That some parents “may at times be acting agains t the interests of their children” .” Pierce v.. [other citations omitted] . This case involves parent’s rights to make medical decisions regarding their child ren’s mental health. Harrison. .. Kent. Commentaries on Americ an Law 190.” 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” . 2 J.S. But neither case denied to a state the policy choice of e ncouraging the preferred course of action . the Court has clearly indicated that private schools do not have a fu ndamental right to state aid. historically it has been recognized t hat natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of thei r children. to recognize and prepare [their children] for additional obligations. J. The PRRA. Commentaries 447. asserted that parents generally “have the right. Soci ety of Sisters.. The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because som e parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition.

Bennett. Roe .. 461 (198 3) This case includes.. Central among these protected libertie s is an individual’s freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life . Akron Center for Reproductive Health Inc. Simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child. 753 (1982) . appendectomy.. Parents can and must make those ju dgements . [emphasis s upplied] Therefore.. would have been different if the children th ere had announced or preference to go to a public.. we cannot assume that the result in Meyer v. 664-668 (1977). simply are not able to make sound judgements concerning many decisions. however. Kramer. sweeps too broadly.. The same characterizations can be made for a tonsillectom y. in a long list of protected liberties and fundamental rights . City of Akron v. 455 US 745. adversary. includi ng their need for medical care or treatment. 86 Yale LJ 645. even in adolescence. But restrictive state regulation of the right to choose abortion as with ot her fundamental rights subject to searching judicial examination. The fact that a child may balk at hospitalization or complain about a parental r efusal to provide cosmetic surgery does not diminish the parent’s authority to dec ide what is best for the child (See generally Goldstein.s supplied] Parental rights are clearly upheld in this decision recognizing the rights of pa rents to make health decisions for their children. Medical Case for the Ch ild at Risk: on State Supervention of Parental Autonomy. Nebraska.. Massachusetts). supra. A parent’s authority to decide what is best for the child in the areas of medical treatment cannot be diminished sim ply because a child disagrees.. Pierce v. Appellees’ argument. 62 Va LR ev 285. require us to hold that parent’s decision to have a child admitted to a menta l hospital must be subjected to an exacting constitutional scrutiny. Griswold . The Court indicated a c ompelling interest test must be applied. More over. 428 US 52 (1976). pre-admission hearing. Danforth. supra.. Most children.... Plann ed Parenthood of Central Missouri v. rather that a church school. Neither state official s nor federal Courts are equipped to review such parental decisions. or other medical procedure. or because it involves risks does not autom atically transfer power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state. Yoder. Appellees urged that these precedents limiting the traditional rights of parents. A parent’s right must be protected and not simply t ransferred to some state agency. Prince v. the Court recently declared unconstitutional a state statute that granted parents an absolute veto over a minor child’s decisions to have an abortion. including their need for medical care. Meyer v. 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 deci sions. and P ierce v. [emphasis supplied] Santosky v. Society of Sisters . Nebraska . including a formal. Allocation of Child Medical Care Decision — Making Authority: A Suggested Interest Analyses. Society of Sisters. The Court continues by explai ning the balancing that must take place: Nonetheless. must be suppor ted by a compelling state interest.. 462 US 416. 308 (1976). if viewed in the context of a liberty interest of the child and the likelihood of parental ab use. we have recognized that a state is not without constitutional contr ol over parental discretion in dealing with children when their physical or ment al health is jeopardized (See Wisconsin v. the parental rights guaranteed under Pierce and Meyer.

In those cases . S.. ..This case involved the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court affirmin g the application of the preponderance of the evidence standard as proper and co nstitutional in ruling that the parent’s rights are permanently terminated. 37 (1981)]. personal. or financial relationship with the child.. Board of Directors of Rotary International v. the liberty of parents to co ntrol the education of their children that was vindicated in Meyer v. Kramer . vacated the lower Court decision. The Court began by quoting another Supreme Court case: In Lassiter [Lassiter v...... “State intervention to terminate such a relationship . and ma nagement of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been mod el parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the state .. in reaching their decision. Massachusetts . Supreme Court. Rotary Club of Duarte. must b e accomplished by procedures meeting the requisites of the Due Process Clause” San tosky v. Society of Sisters . .. Robertson. the U. however. a Californian civil rights statute was held not to violate the Fir st Amendment by requiring an all male non-profit club to admit women to membersh . T he natural father was challenging an adoption.. was described as a “right coupled with the high duty to recognize and prepare the child for additional obligations” . The Court declared it a cardinal principle “that the custody. Department of Social Services.. custody. The absence of dispute reflected this Court’s histori cal recognition that freedom of personal choice in matters of family life is a f undamental liberty interest protected by the 14th Amendment . When t he state moves to destroy weakened familial bonds. it must provide the parents w ith fundamentally fair procedures. this Court has held that the federal constitution supersedes st ate law and provides even greater protection for certain formal family relations hips. The U. [emphasis supplied] Lehr v. and Pierce v. The linkage between parental duty and parental right was stressed again in Prince v. 463 US 248. [emphasis supplied] It is clear by the above case that parental rights are to be treated as fundamen tal and cannot be taken away without meeting the constitutional requirement of d ue process.. 481 US 537 (1987) In this case.. i t was “not disputed that state intervention to terminate the relationship between a parent and a child must be accomplished by procedures meeting the requisites o f the Due Process Clause”. Meyer v. 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. holding that due pr ocess as required under the 14th Amendment in this case required proof by clear and convincing evidence rather than merely a preponderance of the evidence. The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care. 257-258 (1983) In this case. Nebraska ..S.. Societ y of Sisters . the Court has emphasized the paramount interest in the welfare of children and has noted that the rights of the parents are a counterpa rt of the responsibilities they have assumed.. Pierce v.” In these cases. c are 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. .. 452 US 18. made it clear that parents’ rights as outli ned in Pierce and Meyer are fundamental and specially protected under the Fourte enth Amendment. Nebraska. Thus.. the Court has found that the relationship of love and du ty in a recognized family unit is an interest in liberty entitled to Constitutio nal protection . The Supreme Court stated: In some cases.. however. The Court..

. The Court concluded that parents’ rights in child rearing and education are in cluded as fundamental elements of liberty protected by the Bill of Rights. The Court declared that the “compell ing interest test” is still applicable. See. The Court in Smith quoted its prev ious case of Wisconsin v. we have insisted not merely that the interest denominated as a “lib erty” be “fundamental” (a concept that. Pierce v. child rearing and education. Society of Siste rs. 872 (1990) One of the more recent decisions which upholds the right of parents is Employmen t Division of Oregon v.19 [emphasis supplied] In other words. As we have put it . So what does the case have to do with parental rights? After the Court ruled against the Indians. In an attempt to limit and guide interpretation of the Clause. The Court wrongly decided to throw out the Fr ee Exercise Clause as a defense to any “neutral” law that might violate an individua l’s religious convictions. the begetting and bearing of children . is hard to objectify). 510 (1925).. Massachu setts. Smith..S. the right of parents. 406 U. Nebraska .S. the U. which involved two Indians who were fired from a private drug rehabilitation organization because they ingested “peyote. see Wisconsi n v. Meyer v.. parents’ rights to control the education of their children is considered a “constitutionally protected right” which requires the application of the compelling interest test. as expected.S. When they sought unemployment com pensation. Gerald. v..S. Supreme Court ruled: It is an established part of our constitution jurisprudence that the term liberty in the Due Process Clause e xtends beyond freedom from physical restraint. the Due Process Clause affords only those protections “so rooted in the traditio ns and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental” Snyder v. in isolation. Yoder: . e. not to the Free Exercise Clause alone: [B]ut the Free Exercise Clause in conjunction with other constitutional protecti ons such as .” a hallucino genic drug as part of their religious beliefs. 491 U. The Court has recognized that the freedom to enter into and carry on certain int imate or private relationships is a fundamental element of liberty protected by the Bill of Rights . Supreme Court reversed the case and found t hat the First Amendment did not protect drug use. the Cou rt went out of its way to say that the parents’ rights to control the education of their children is still a fundamental right.g. Society of Si sters .” The 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 dru gs.S. but also that it be an interest traditionally protected by our society.S.205 (1972) invalidating compulsory-attendance laws as applie d to Amish parents who refused on religious grounds to send their children to sc hool. 291 US 97. Smith.. Of course. 494 U. the intimate relationships to which we have accorded Cons titutional protection include marriage . In the process of destroying religious freedom.. the U. 105 (1934).ip. to direct the education of their children... 268 U.” Employment Division of Oregon v.. Yoder. acknowledged in Pierce v.. they were denied because they were discharged for “misconduct. [emphasis supplied] The Court explicitly included the parental rights under Pierce and Meyer as “fundamental” and interests “traditiona lly protected by our society. under this precedent. [emphasis suppli ed] Michael H.. 110 (1989) In a paternity suit. Pierce v. Society of Sisters . it then analyzed the application of t he Free Exercise Clause generally.

7 406 US 205 . ???? duplicated ??? 1990) Hodgson v. but that they are “deemed essential.20 [emphasis supplied] Instead of merely showing that a regulation conflicting with parents’ rights is re asonable. We have long held that there exists a “private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.” 406 U. 497 U. Minnesota. And when the inte rests of parenthood are combined with a free exercise claim .. [other citations omitted].” which requires the state to prove its regulation to be the least r estrictive means. at 233..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. 417 (1990) In 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. . at 233.S. See Wisconsin v Yoder. reach the higher standard of the “compelling interest test..” Parham. 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 Amend ment. therefore. the state must... the state must. Th e statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to Americ an tradition. therefore.” 406 U. Th e statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to Americ an tradition.” which requires the state to prove its regulation to be the least r estrictive means. 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. at 603.20 [emphasis supplied] Instead of merely showing that a regulation conflicting with parents’ rights is re asonable. reach the higher standard of the “compelling interest test..S.S. parents’ rights to control the education of their children is considered a “constitutionally protected right” which requires the application of the compelling interest test. under this precedent. 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 Amend ment.” The family has a privacy interest in the upbringing and education of children an d the intimacies of the marital relationship which is protected by the Constitut ion against undue state interference.. but that they are “deemed essential. See Wisconsin v Yoder. Minnesota..” The family has a privacy interest in the upbringing and education of children an d the intimacies of the marital relationship which is protected by the Constitut ion against undue state interference.” Prince v Massa chusetts . 7 406 US 205 ..S.. Hodgson v. 417 ( In 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. The Court in Smith qu oted its previous case of Wisconsin v.. 442 US..” In other words. And when the inte rests of parenthood are combined with a free exercise claim . 497 U.

443 US 633-639 . Vernonia School District 47J v. 410 (1991) In this case. Massachusetts . 533 (1 953) . The rights to c onceive and to raise one’s children have been deemed ‘essential....Ed.. 541 (1942). Troxel v. 405 US 645 (1972) [other cites omitted]: “The court has frequently emphasized the importance of the family. and in lack thereof. and ‘[r]igh ts far more precious .R.’ Skinner v Oklahoma. 321 US 158. which presumptiv ely includes counseling them on important decisions. They are subjec t. 450 US 398... They reasoned that children do not have many of the rights accorded citizens. v. Acton. The Court stated: In addition. than property rights.” [emphasis supplied ] The Court leaves no room for doubt as to the importance and protection of the ri ghts of parents.L. unemancipated minors lack some of the most fundamental rights of self-determination—including even the right of libe rty in its narrow sense. whose primary function and freedom includes preparation for oblig ations the state can neither supply. care.’ Meyer v Nebraska. Nebraska) . The case involved a Washington State statute which provided that a " court may order visitation rights for any person when visitation may serve the b est interests of the child. Society of Sister s .. . even as to their physical freedom. “It is cardinal with us that the custody. Yoder. ‘basic civil rights of man. 57 (2000) In this case the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion on parent al liberty. constitutional interpr etation 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. H. Parent and Child § 10 (1987). Illinois. 530 U. Granville. The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Proces s Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 390 US 629 (1968) . Meyer v.e. We have recognized that parents have an important “guiding role” to play in th e upbringing of their children.. (1944)]. 115 S..2d 564.. See Am Jur 2d. the right to come and go at will. Meyer v Nebraska.. parents and guardians possess and exercise those rights and authorities in the child’s best interest: Traditionally at common law.Ct. We have recognized on numerous occas ions that the relationship between the parent and the child is Constitutionally protected (Wisconsin v.. and nurture of the child reside first i n the parents. nor hinder. and still today.. J. 316 US 535. See also Parham v.’ May v Anderson. . New York. Stanley v. whether or not there has been any change of circumst .A natural parent who has demonstrated sufficient commitment to his or her childr en is thereafter entitled to raise the children free from undue state interferen ce. As Justice White explained in his opinion of the Court in Stanley v Illinois . the Supreme Court recognized the parents’ right to know about their child seeking an abortion.” [Quoting Prince v. Matheson.S. 2386 (1995) In Vernonia the Court strengthened parental rights by approaching the issue from a different point of view.. Ginsberg v.. 166. i. Pierce v. 132 L. This Court clearly upholds the parent’s right to know in the area of minor childre n making medical decisions. 345 US 528. Bellotti II. supra. to the control of their parents or guardia ns.

232. As a fundamental right. including it among those rights deemed fundamental." Wash.S. 406 U. The U. this decision means that the government may no t infringe parents right to direct the education and upbringing of their childr en unless it can show that it is using the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling governmental interest. and control of their children…Wisconsin v. Supreme Court ruled that the Wash ington statute "unconstitutionally interferes with the fundamental right of pare nts to rear their children.ances. Ct.net or Weemom2002@yahoo. Granville. Conclusion The U. For additional copies or questions. please e-mail us at ctDCFwatch@snet. The Court decisively confirmed t hese rights in the recent case of Troxel v. parental liberty is to be protected by the highest standard of review: the compelling interest te st.S. we have recognized the f undamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care. 32 L.160(3). 2d 15. Supreme Court has consistently protected parental rights. parental rights have reached thei r highest level of protection in over 75 years. 1526 (1972) ("The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and This case clearly uph olds parental rights. 92 S. which should serve to mai ntain and protect parental rights for many years to come.S. Code § 26. custody. In essence." The Court went on to examine its treatment of paren tal rights in previous cases: In subsequent cases also. Rev. Yoder.10.com 12 #2 Something For The People . As can be seen from the cases described above. Ed. 205.

.Resources for Reference and Research Menu Skip to content Home Beginners Manual Fight CPS Hand Book Resources Tips Family Educational Rights The Corruption The Constitution Human Trafficking Kangaroo Courts New World Order Contact Us Fight CPS Hand Book CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM A guide to protect the constitutional rights of both parents and children as rul ed by the Federal Circuit Courts and Supreme Court.

As you read this handbook. Some are called DCF. collectively known as “CPS” for the purposes o f this handbook. DCFS. Every state has variances of CPS in one form or another. which are required under the . DH S. DSS. The intent of this handbook is to inform parents. The material in this handbook should be supplemented by your ow n careful study of the 4th and 14th Amendments and other Constitutional protecti ons that are guaranteed even in the context of dealing with CPS. the AAG. they lose their “im munity” by those “Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law” and must be sued in th eir “Official and Individual” capacity in order to succeed in a §§ 1983 and 1985 civil r ight’s lawsuit. CYS and FIA. Contrary to what any CPS officials. DCYS. HRS. they are all subject to and must yield to the 4th and 14th Amendment just like police officers according to the C ircuit and District Courts of the United States and the Supreme Court. they als o 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 ho me without probable cause or exigent circumstances. CPS worke rs can be sued for violations of your 4th and 14th Amendments. Juvenile Judge or any social workers may say. you will be amazed what your rights are and how CPS conspires with the Assistant Attorney Ge neral (“AAG”) who then in turn has the Judge issue warrant/orders that are unlawful and unconstitutional under the law. 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.TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface 1 About The Authors 1 Introduction 1 SECTION 1 – Never Ever Trust Anyone from CPS/DCF 2 SECTION 2 – Are All CPS Workers in the United States Subject to the 4th And 14th A mendment? 3 SECTION 3 – The Fourth Amendment’s Impact on Child Abuse Investigations 8 SECTION 4 – When Is Consent Not Consent? 8 SECTION 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 SECTION 7 – Summary of Family Rights (Family Association) 12 SECTION 8 – Warrantless Entry 12 SECTION 9 – Due Process 13 SECTION 10 – Seizures (Child Removals) 14 SECTION 11 – Immunity 15 SECTION 12 – Decisions of the United States Supreme Court Upholding Parental Right s as “Fundamental” 16 PREFACE This is only a guide to your constitutional protections in the context of an inv estigation of alleged child abuse and neglect by Child Protective Services (“CPS”). If the police assisted CPS in that deprivation of rights.

and that CPS MUST by law comply with the “Warrant Clause” as required by the Constitution and the Federal Courts whereas they are “gov ernmental officials” and are subject to the Constitution as are the police. The fact of the matter is that over 80% of the calls phoned into CPS are false and bogus. The author’s goals are to not have another child illegally abducted from their fam ily. threatening and intimidation tactics even if the police only got the door open so CPS official can gain entry . If CPS cannot support a warrant and show that the child is in immanent dan . In fact removing a child f rom your home without your consent even for several hours is a “seizure” under feder al law. There are NO EXCEPTIONS to the Constitution for CPS.warrant clause of the 14th Amendment. Another myth is that CPS can conduct an investigation in your home without your consent and speak to your child without your consent. this is just a myth. Remember. this is also illegal and unlawful and both lose immunity. Speaking to your children without your consent is also a “seizure” under the law. The police may even thr eaten you to let CPS in because you are obstructing an investigation. they are going t o do everything in their power including lying to you and threatening you with p olice presence telling you that you have to let them in. INTRODUCTION You as a parent or caregiver MUST know your rights and be totally informed of wh at you have a legal right to have and to express. CPS anywhere in the United Sta tes cannot lawfully enter your home and speak with you and your children. Many individuals come to the wrong co nclusion that the parents must have been abusive or neglectful for CPS to invest igate. Both can be sued. In fac t. This is coercion. CPS officials will not tell you your rights. ABOUT THE AUTHORS The authors of this handbook are not attorneys and do not pretend to be attorney s. CPS employees will lie to you and tell you they do not need your consent. abusive and many times unlawful actions of CPS or i f you have never been investigated by CPS. The fact of the matter is they a bsolutely need your consent to come into your home and speak with your children. If CPS lies to the AAG and the Judge to get a warrant/order and you can prove it . you refuse them entry. The authors fought back for 8 months against this corrupt organization whose order of the day was t o deny them their 4th. You can sue the social worker and the police who assist them a nd both lose immunity from being sued. whether you are a parent caugh t up in the very oppressive. CPS does not have a legal right to conduct an investigation of alleged child abu se or neglect in a private home without your consent. In fact. The authors were victims of a false report and were falsely accused by DCF in Connecticut without a proper investigation being conducted. If there is no “exigent circumstances” (imminent danger) to your children with “proba ble cause” (credible witness) to support a warrant. it is illegal. Many polic e officers do not realize that CPS MUST comply with the warrant clause of the 14 th Amendment or be sued for violating it. has no legal warrant. and the worker then threatens you with calling the police. that CPS and juvenile judges start using common sense before rushing to jud gment and to conduct their investigations the same as police in order to be cons titutionally correct and legal. 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. 6th and 14th Amendment rights and to fabricate false char ges without evidence. If a CPS official knocks on your door.

parenting conduct. they lied to the judge. What you think is or is not abuse or neglect. charitable contributions and most importantly t he intimate emotional. 442 U.” It’s none of the st ate’s business on how you are to raise your children.S. The 1st Amendment bars such action because the rearing o f children and the best interest of children is often based on ones religious be liefs. 584. i. or someone wanting to get reveng e. Consequently. State Law provisions mandate that the State invade the family. 304. And even if they got a name and number from the reporter on the en d of the phone. Parham v. citizen’s . to examine. spousal roles. parental decision mak ing. Remember. economic standard of living. 292. Flores. how you act. The call alone. We will discuss in further detail what CPS a nd the police can and can not do. the state and Child Protective Servic es can not impose a standard of living dealing with the rearing of children. S. 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 s ome arbitrary standard. psychological and physical details of the parties and fam ily during their marriage granting the judiciary a broad range of discretion to apply a property stripping statute with a standard of equity. Granville. The State cannot usurp a fit parent’s decision making related to parental spending for their children. 57 (2000). mark my word. Tell that to the half dozen social workers currently sitting in jail in California.S. investigate the caller to determine if he or she is the person who the y say they are and that what they said is credible. Reno v. through the judic iary. Whe n they violate this fundamental right.. 507 U. So CPS needs to show the same due diligence as the police to obtain sworn sta tements. S. This would be an a buse of the judicial power and the judicial system to intrude into U. the Plaintiffs term this “parental immunity. The state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when a fit parent i s available. ex-spouses. In other words.e. DCF will lie to you. CPS cannot enter your home and speak with your ch ildren. CPS has a totally different definition. case plan or horse and pony show. what to feed the child. R.e. In other words. whether or not to home school and so on. The courts and the state lack j urisdiction on what goes on in the house even though they disagree with the choi ces made by parents. standing by itself. i . evaluate. they would be intruding on the family’s lif e and liberty interest. SECTION 1 THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THERE IS A PRESUMPTION THAT A FIT PARENT ACTS IN THEIR CHILDREN’S BEST INTERESTS NOT CHILD PROTECTION (CPS) OR YOUR STATE The United States Supreme Court has stated: “There is a presumption that fit pare nts act in their children’s best interests. determine and conclude the terms and nature of the i nterpersonal relationship. J. education. Many bogus call s are made by disgruntle neighbors. and tell you that they can do anything they want and have total im munity. assets. 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 live. how to dress the child. parental spending. Troxel v. All CPS agencies across the country have an exaggerated view of their p ower. 602. 530 U. The definition is whatever they want it to be. savings. By the state imposing any standa rd of living or the rearing of children. anonymous calls into CPS are NEVER probable cause under the Wa rrant Clause. child support without either a demonstration the parent is unfit or there is proven harm to the child.ger along with probable cause. CPS mus t by law. spousal conduct. the separation of church and state. t here 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 children. that also does not support probable cause under the law. occupati ons. is insufficient to support probable cause under the law.e. they are putting forth a religious stan dard by their actions i.

2054 (2000). i. the standard of the best interests of a child. The re is no basis for the State to have a statute that mandates a fit divorced pare nt should support their child to a different standard. 120 S. abduction of children. we are not bonded the way that we used to be. They substitute the State s judgment for the parent’s judgment as to the best interest of his or her children. who requested that he only be identified by his first name. on behalf of his or her children. 530 U. par anoid and frightened by the allegations that some thought would result in them l osing their children. and the effects of the rift that developed between them remain years later. the Attorney General’s Office an d the Juvenile Courts can’t make on behalf of the parents or for the child unless the parent is adjudicated unfit. i. We are all broken up. spending. 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. CPS and the Attorney General’s Office can not interfere or remove a single child.e. CPS. The United States Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment contains a recognized Right to Privacy. unless CPS and the Attorney General’s Office can provide the requis ite proof of parental unfitness. The U. the State must not so mandate absent a d emonstration that the choice of support provided by the parent has resulted in h arm to his or her children. It devastated . The State is not permitted and lacks jurisdiction to determine care and maintena nce.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer found “am ple evidence” that families suffered emotional and psychological injuries because the separations lasted “for more than a brief or temporary period. i. Troxel v. “I don’t think it can ever be repaired. i. The challenged statutes do not mandat e a review to determine if demonstrable harm exists to the children in determini ng the amount of support that the parent must provide.” said the father. families described being shocked.” The judge didn’t fault the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services for erring on the side of caution in such cases. control. but she held that parents had a ri ght to know the length of the expected separations and how to contest the restri ctions. decisions of a fit parent based on hi s or her income in an intact marriage other than to prevent harm to a child. This fundamental Right to Privacy encompasses the Privacy Protected Zone of Parenting. This court should recognize the changed standard of State intrusion in parenting sho uld also apply to the context of parents care. and maintenance. “I cannot get over what they did to me. 57. Supreme Court has mandated that the standard for the State to intrude i n parenting decisions relating to grandparent visitation is no longer best inter ests of the child. SECTION Child Protection Threats to Take Children Ruled Illegal By Ofelia Casillas and Matt O’Connor Chicago Tribune Staff Reporters A federal judge ruled that Illinois families were deprived of their constitutio nal rights when state child welfare officials threatened to separate parents fro m their children during abuse investigations. Furthermore.S. It is not the state’s right or jurisdictio n 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. A father from Skokie spent almost a year away from his family.e. child discipline. child discipline decisions. Parents felt that caseworkers assumed them to be guilty. you’re State.Ct.S.lives and violate their privacy rights. In telephone interviews with the Tribune. In conclusion.e. And as long as there is one fit parent. In a decision made public Monday. Granville. sp ending. U. i. Patrick.e.e.e.

day-care prov iders. the father from Skokie. Cook County Public Guardian Robert Harris applauded Pallmeyer’s decision. In 2001. the state is actually destroying families and hur ting children. According to the decision. chose to reject the plan. some of which require little or no evidence of risk of harm–a fact that drew the criticism of plaintiffs. who was killed by his mentally ill mother after he was returned to her by the st ate. faced with such an express or implied threat of protective custody. As part of assessing whether a child is in danger. “We have definitely made changes.” The ruling shows the dilemma facing the oft-criticized DCFS in its charge to pro tect children from harm but also keep families together when possible. There is no [procedure] to complain unless you have some money to hire a lawyer. and to implicate due process rights. often based on tips to DCFS. she held. “There is no real due process. she found that DCFS investigators often made find ings of child abuse on little evidence. said Pallmeyer’s review of safety plans was li mited to 2002 and before and didn’t consider changes since then. At issue are safety plans. but that Pallmeyer’s decision would affect thousands of fa milies who agree to safety plans each year. spent 11 months away from his three children a nd his wife. “When an investigator expressly or implicitly conveys that failure to accept a pla n will result in the removal of the children for more than a brief or temporary period of time. nannies. In her decision.” he said. The safety plans are supposedly voluntary agreements by parents in most cases t o leave their home indefinitely or stay under constant supervision after investi gations into child abuse or neglect are launched. DCFS specialists determine w hether one of 15 safety factors is present.” said Jackson. But Pallmeyer defended that practice.” But the plans can’t remain in place indefinitely. For DCFS to determine a child to be unsafe requires the finding of only one safety factor. Diane Jackson. social workers and others who work directly with children. said about 10 families were invo lved in the court case. Diane Redleaf. it constitutes a threat sufficient to deem the family’s agreement coerced. missing their birthdays and a wedding anniversary. “Instead of protecting children. 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 adm inistrative hearing cleared him of the charges–based in part on information availa ble early on. Pallmeyer gave DCFS 60 days to develop “constitutionally adequate procedures” for f amilies to contest the safety plans. “Significantly.” the j udge said.” Redleaf said. Those protections are intended to keep the falsely accused from losing their jobs. Pallmeyer essentially held that DCFS had gone too far in prote cting children and had eroded the constitutional rights of parents. part of the wholesale reforms instituted by DCFS aft er the public uproar over the horrific 1993 death of 3-year-old Joseph Wallace.” This is the second significant ruling by Pallmeyer to go against DCFS stemming f rom the same lawsuit. declining to be more specific until DCFS can report to Pallmeyer. . concluding that “it is not improper for DCF S to err on the side of caution given the significant state interest in protecti ng children from harm. one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys. The judge extended new protections to teachers. Patrick. But most of the families who testified at a 22-day hearing in 2002 and 2003 sai d the investigators threatened to take away their children unless they agreed to the safety plans. No real due process’ “It’s abridging both the children’s and the parents’ rights to have that amorphous safe ty plan that could go on forever.my whole entire life. a DCFS spokeswoman. including if a household member is v iolent or sexual abuse is suspected. I can never be the same again. [DCFS] has not identified a single family that.” Pallmeyer wrote in the 59-page opin ion. unfairly blacklisting professionals accu sed of wrongdoing.

despite about a decade of experience. Families who do not like home schoolers can make an anonymous phone call to the child abuse hotline and fabricate abuse stories abou t home schoolers. In another case. Susan Redlin said. Patrick said Monday. “It was really emotional every time I left. however. was accused by a passenger of inappro priately touching his son. The social worker then has an obligation to investigate. thei r grades falling. then 12 and 13–in a foster h ome unless he moved out of their home. who suffers from a mild form of autism. “It made Jim awfully leery of being alone with Joey.” At the time. James Redlin. crying. “That was the worst. “My husband and son could not be out of my sight. said Monday that her husband was tickling their son. This way. Patrick was unable to find a job in child care. every single nigh t. “I would have to come here after my wife got off work. a teacher. “I never got any type of apology. carnival adventures. The goodbyes were heart-wrenching. In fact. “I did not do that.” Susan Redlin said. when you call yo . grabbed a few belongings and later moved in with his sister in Ch icago. then 10. Joey. Susan Redlin. Klicka.” said Patrick. has mul tiple sclerosis and uses a wheelchair. After he was cleared of the allegations in December 2001. responsible for supervising her son under the safety plan. Senior Counsel for the Home School Legal Defense Association More and more frequently. am I a pervert?” Just Sunday. The lengthy sep aration changed his relationship with his family. Patrick recalled. his son was acting up at school. To allow either of these to occur involves great risk to the family. DCFS required that the father not act as an independent caretaker for his son u ntil the case was resolved. effectively leaving the family “prisoners” in their own home. He went home. and two girls. according to the court ruling. The home school parent. “I was put out on the street. Each state has a different policy for social workers. there are several tips that a famil y should follow: 1. home schoolers are turned in on child abuse hotlines to social service agencies. Joey’s mother. If I enjoy hugging my [son]. he said. he said. The husband was cleared of wrongdoing by September. let us give you counseling. Until then. the father was able to see his children at church and later had supervise d visits. Heart-wrenching goodbyes Soon. and then I would have to le ave. but generally they want to come into the family’s home and speak with the children separately. movie outings–and plans to teach Joey how to ride a bike. during a Metra train ride to the Field Museum in the summer of 2000.” Patrick said of DCFS. They still are. “I was just totally violated. carrying the boy on his lap and holding him up to look out the window. should be very cautious when an individual ide ntifies himself as a social worker. a DCFS investigator threat ened to put his children–a boy. then 6.” the father said.Even though the allegations concerned his workplace. Joey’s mother. she was out with her son and was about to swat h im jokingly on the rear when she stopped herself.” she said. father and son were forced to forgo trail hikes. even hugging him. His daughters cried in class. any type of thing to say your kids might be mess ed up.” It wasn’t until a month later that he was able to explain the circumstances to his children after the caseworker allowed a visit. “What if someone is watching?” SECTION 2 The Social Worker At Your Door: 10 Helpful Hints By Christopher J. And my kids didn’t understand why I had to leave. Always get the business card of the social worker. They were very confused and v ery hurt.” she said. even holdin g hands.

you do so without my consent. anonymous tips are all they have to go on. Call your attorney or HSLDA. Normally.) However.e. Often time s HSLDA will arrange a meeting between the social worker and our member family a fter preparing the parents on what to discuss and what not to discuss. social workers or police threaten to use force to c ome into a home. This is guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment of the U. If entry is going to be made under d uress you should say and do the following: “I am closing my front door. references from individuals who can vouch for your being good parents. Offer to give the officials the following supporting evidence: a. it is always important to secure an attorney in these matters. after he has examined your children. and put the investigation on your prayer chain. 8. if you are a member. 3.. 9. poli ce may enter a home without a warrant if there are exigent circumstances. in some instances. Ignore intimidations. They wi ll routinely threaten to acquire a court order. 7. b. a statement from your doctor. You generally have the right to know the allegations without allowing them in your home. particularly where severe allegations are involved. Do not fall for the frequently used tactic of the social worker who would tell the unsuspecting victims that they can only give yo u the allegations after they have come into your home and spoken to your child s eparately. . HSLDA attorneys routinely assist member families by convincing social workers of this aspect of an investigation. Never let the social worker in your house without a warrant or court order. I will not physically prevent you from entering. We have a 24 h our emergency number. the a ttorney will be able to contact the social worker on your behalf. police are aware of immediate danger or harm to the child. A warrant requires “probable cause” which does not include an anonymous t ip or a mere suspicion. Usually. if the al legations involve some type of physical abuse. c. but be sure to inform the police office r or social worker that you are doing this. Tell the official that you will call back after you speak with your attorney . Find out the allegations. On nearly every other incident concerning our members. All the cases that you have heard about where children are snatched from the hom e 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. Constitution as interpreted by the courts. But you do not have my permission to enter. HSLDA members should call our office in such situations. evidence of the legality of your home school program.” 4. and I will seek legal actio n for an illegal entry. an attorney. On a few occasions. HSLDA had children stand by the door and greet the socia l worker. Bring a tape recorder and/or witnesses to any subsequent meeting. has been p resent. i. 6. social workers are trained to bluff. If the situati on is hostile. which is not sufficient to take someone to cou rt. knowing full well that there is no evidence on which to secure an order. Over and over again. since there are occasions where social wor kers are able to obtain a court order with flimsy evidence. social worker s have been allowed to talk with children. HSLDA has seen God deliver home schoolers from this scary scenario. At other times. HSLDA members should immediately call our office and hand the pho ne out the door so an HSLDA lawyer can talk to the social worker. Never let the social worker talk to your children alone without a court order . chosen by the parent. However. If you o pen my door and enter. If your home school is an issue. If you encounter a situation which escalates to this level. 2. In 98 percent of the contacts that HSLD A handles. Inform your church. the threats turn out to be bluffs. but not be subject to any questioning. 5. The discu ssion at the meeting should be limited to the specific allegations and you shoul d avoid telling them about past events beyond what they know. and I will not physic ally resist you in any way. but it is unlocked. In these instances. (In extremely rare situations.S .ur attorney or Home School Legal Defense Association. rec ord the conversation if at all possible. HSLDA has been able to keep the social worker away from the children. What you give them can and will be used against you. if you are a member.

O.” This is a term that is synonymou s with the term “probable cause”. no. and the governm ents that employed them settled this civil rights case for $150. 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. Floyd.” This same tipster said that an unnamed ne ighbor had told her that she had heard a child cry out from the back yard. California. Patrick Henry College General Counsel. Box 3000. The child welfa re system is out of control. To obtain The Right Cho ice or join the Home School Legal Defense Association.” Ca labretta v. he is normally required. Avoid leaving young children at home alone. the family is responsible for hiring their own attorney. P. upon later review.10. HSLDA recommends Ho me Schooling: The Right Choice. call 540-338-5600. Do not spank children in public. 189 F. In instances when the allegations have nothing to do with home schooling. Do not spank someone else’s child unless they are close Christian friends.000. The facts in the Calabretta case are fairly typical for the kind of situation w e see almost daily at Home School Legal Defense Association. If i t cannot be resolved. For further information on how to deal with social workers. In other wor ds. but also protecting children’s interest in the privacy and di gnity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents.3d 808 (1999). SECTION The Fourth Amendment’s Impact on Child Abuse Investigations Michael P. Federal statistics have shown that up to 60 percent of children remove d from homes. an anonymous tip alone and mere suspicion is not enough for a social worker to obtain a warrant. In order for a social worker to get a warrant to come and enter a home and inte rview children separately. The tips ter said that he/she had heard a child’s voice coming from the Calabretta home or property which cried out. b. “No. HSLDA is beginning to work with states to reform the child welfare laws to guar antee more freedom for parents and better protection for their parental rights. Constitution. “No. the social workers. or wri te HSLDA. in pursuit of a child abuse investigation. Home School Legal Defense Association is committed to defending every member family who is b eing investigated by social workers. An anonymous call c ame into a hotline manned by social workers in Yolo County. HSLDA has been able to overturn these in court so that the order to enter the home was never carried out. “The gover nment’s interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse. Upon remand for the dama ges phase of the trial. should never have been removed. “Probable cause” or cause shown is reliable evidence t hat must be corroborated by other evidence if the tip is anonymous. VA 20134. and we need to be prepared. This statement came in a case which held that social workers who. by both statute and the U. invaded a family home without a warrant violate th e Fourth Amendment rights of both children and parents. no . Farris President. provided the allegations involve home schoo ling. HSLDA will be sending out Alerts to its members in various states where such leg islation is drafted and submitted as a bill. which it normally can be in most instances by HSLDA’s involv ement. to prove that there is some “cause. Conduct public relations with your immediate neighbors and acquaintances reg arding the legality and success of home schooling. a. the police officers. Purcellville.S. Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said it best. c. daddy. Avoid potential situations that could lead to a child welfare investigation . d. There have been some home-schooled families who have been faced with a warrant even though there was not probable cause. which was written with the intention of informin g home school parents of their rights in order to prevent them from becoming a s tatistic.

Both the federal district court and the Ninth Circuit disagreed with th ese arguments. The social worker possesses evidence that meets two standards: (a) it satisfies the legal standard of establishing probable cause. no” on another occasion. Calabretta ope ned the door and allowed the social worker and the police officer to enter. The police officer informed Mrs. It should be remembered that consent is only one of the three valid ways to gai n entry: (warrant. What are the requirements of the Fourth Amendment? The general rule is that unreasonable searches and seizures are banned. And. “If you don’t let me in the home I will take your children aw ay”—a parent who then opens the door has not given free and voluntary consent.. and their government agencies moved to dismi ss claiming that there was no violation of any clearly established constitutiona l right. If a police officer says. consent. The tipster added that the family was home schooling their children and noted t hat the family was very religious. Social workers are not exempt from the requirements of the Fourth Amendment when they act alone. she returned to the home with a police officer and demanded that Mrs. Acting on the advice HSLDA gives all its members. The social worker came to investigate the matter four days after receiving the call. And police officers are not exempt from t he requirement even if all they do is get the front door open for the social wor ker. Calab retta allow them to enter. “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. But the second part of the rule is the most important in this context. and (b) the evidence demonstrates that there are exigent circumstances relative to the health of the children. The social worker. “We have a warrant you must let us in” or “We have s olid evidence that your child is in extreme danger. Threa ts to go get a “pick up order” negate consent. Calabretta that they did not need a warrant for any child abuse investigation and when she still ref used to allow entry he told her that they would enter with or without her consen t. Any type of communication which conve ys the idea to the parent that they have no realistic alternative but to allow e ntry negates any claim that the entry was lawfully gained through the channel of consent. There are two and only two recognized exceptions to the requirement of having a warrant for the conduct of a child abuse investigation: 1. Of course. During the course of discovery in the civil r ights case. we found that the social worker listed the home schooling and religi ous information not as merely general background facts but as “risk factors” in her internal reports. Not wanting a physical confrontation with a police officer. in similar fashion.) There is nothing improper about saying. Since this was not done. and an inte rview was conducted with the family’s 12 year old daughter. Contrary to the assumption of hundreds of social workers that we have interacte d with at HSLDA. the Ninth Circuit held that the Fourth Amendment applies just a s much to a child abuse investigation as it does to any criminal or other govern mental investigation. Calabretta refused to let the social worker into the home because she did not have a warrant. A pa rtial strip search was done of one of the young Calabretta children. The social worker returned to her office and requested that another worker be s ent to follow up while she was on vacation. The adult in charge of the premises gives the social worker his/her free and voluntary consent to enter the home. ten days la ter. you must let us in. or probable cause and exigent circumstances. if a claim is made that the . Consent. If a social worker says. Mrs. police officer. 2. They are not exempt from its rules if the y are accompanied by a police officer.” Such stat ements indicate that the social worker is relying on some theory other than cons ent to gain lawful entry. Mrs. All warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable. the social worker must indeed have a warran t if such a claim is made.

keep in mind that the ultimate federal mandate is the Const itution of the United States. was sexually abusing the children in that home. A quick verification of th e relationship can be made in a variety of ways and once verified. they settled the matter with a substantial payment to the family in satisfact ion of their claims that the entry was in violation of their civil rights becaus e the evidence in their possession did not satisfy the standard of probable caus e. The first claim was that his son. They found the claims to be utterly spurious . A grandfather called in a hotline complaint with two totally separate allegatio ns of sexual abuse. First and foremost. California. App. Ct. No federal law can condition your receipt of feder . Probable Cause & Exigent Circumstances The Fourth Amendment does not put a barrier in the way of a social worker who h as reliable evidence that a child is in imminent danger. this places the social worker in a dilemma. When the social workers arrived at her home. What do you do? The answer is: Pay attention to the details of each set of the rules. 1992). These were two separate allegations in tw o separate homes. However. Despite the fact that the social workers knew that their reporter had been prev iously found to be unreliable—they insisted that they would enter the family home without consent. would satisfy the legal test of reliability which is necessary to establish pr obable cause. It is not enough to have information that the children are in some form of seri ous danger. who was a boarder in an un related family’s home. and the perception of federal mandates seem to require a social worker to conduct an investigation on the basis of an anonymous tip. v. age 5. The social workers went to the home of the unrelated family first to investigat e the claims about the tipster’s son. 2d 477 (Ala. The daughter h ad talked to her brother in the meantime and knew that her father had made a fal se report about him. illustrat es that even a grandparent cannot be considered a per se reliable informant. The second claim concerned his daughter and her husband. as have numerous other decisions which have faced the issue directly. H. a case handled by HSLDA in San Bernadino County. st ate statutes. and he looked pale and weak to me”—the social worker certainly h as evidence of exigent circumstances and is only one step away from having proba ble cause. here is my address and phone number. “My name is Mildred Smith. 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 violatin g the Fourth Amendment rights of those being investigated. The evidence must also pass a test of reliability that our justice s ystem calls probable cause. the court held that an anonymous tip standing alone never amounts to probable cause. The claim here was that the husban d was sexually abusing their children. I was visiting my grandchildren this morning and I discovered that one of my grandchildren. Johnny. On the one hand. on the other hand. State Departme nt of Human Resources. she informed t hem that they were in pursuit of a report made by a known false reporter—her fathe r. They had gained entry into the home based on the consent of the children’s paren ts. it is possible that the tipster is an imposter and not the child’s grandmother. But. On the surface. the informant .entry is being made upon probable cause of exigent circumstances.R. Since the report has been received over the telephone. The Calabretta court held the same thing. 612 So. 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. then that must also be independently true. is being locked in his bedroom without food for days at a time. The following day they went to the home of the tipster’s daughter. In a civil rights suit we brought against the social workers and police officer s. For example. if a hotli ne call comes in and says. local regulations. In the first appellate case I ever handled in this area. Moreover.

549 (1995). The trial judge sustained her position an d held that the mere receipt of a report of child abuse or neglect was sufficien t for the issuance of an entry order. The Fourth Amendmen t itself spells out the evidence required for a warrant or entry order. If a court issues a warrant based on an uncorroborated anonymous tip. However. for example. I gave her some improbable allegations involving anonymous tipsters a ngry at government officials demanding that social workers investigate these off icials for abusing their own children. South Dakota v. from an examination by a doctor when their mothe r is present and cooperating. The net requirement is this: if your laws and re gulations seem to require entry into every home.R. the warra nt will not survive a judicial challenge in the higher courts. Griffin v. That court held that the Alabama statute’s r equirement of “cause shown” had to be read in the light of the Fourth Amendment. are turned into maliciously false allegations breathed into a hotline. Personal vendettas. realize that the mandate to conduct an investigation does not require y ou to enter every home. 868 (1987). In court. This covers the vast majority of investigations. Second. Policy Implications It is my opinion that the welfare of children is absolutely consistent with our constitutional requirements. t o a small child all they know is that a strange adult is taking off their clothi ng while their mother is sobbing in the next room in the presence of an armed po lice officer. Alabama. 483 U. for a report to be anonymous. For example. However.al funds on the basis that you violate some other provision of the Constitution. If permission is denied. The overwhelming response of p eople being investigated is to allow the social worker to enter the home and con duct whatever investigation is reasonably necessary. nothing in the Constitution prevents a social worker from going to a home and simply asking to come in. the trial judge’s decision was reve rsed by the Alabama Court of Appeals. he/she can always go to the home and ask permission for entry. Children are not well-served if they are subjected to investigations based on false allegations. If the parent or guardian says “yes”. The difference between an anonymous report and a con fidential report is obvious. if a tipster says. Her position was that she had to enter th e home of all those who were reported. The United States Supreme Court has held t hat courts may not use a different standard other than probable cause for the is suance of such orders.” 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 w arrant in a reasonable time. then social workers should be i nstructed to add this caveat: “when it is constitutional for me to do so. disputes on the Little League field. This was the essence of the decision in the case of H.S. neighborhood s quabbles. that the child is covere d with bruises from head to toe. In an anonymous report the social worker or police . This does not seem to a child to be a proper invasion of their per son—quite different. Dole. such rules and statutes must be construed in a manner co nsistent with the Constitution. No warra nt shall issue but on probable cause. From my perspective. contact could be made with the child’s teacher to see if he/she has ever seen such bruises. If a social worker receives an anonymous tip.S. Even if your rules or statutes seem to expressly require entry into every home. Wisconsin. There is every reason to kee p the reports confidential. Anonymous tips ar e never probable cause. An anonymous tip standing alone did not meet the standard of cause shown. v. 514 U. there is no reason wh atsoever in any case. The second alternative is to seek a warrant or entry order. In that ca se. I see them al l the time. then the social worker—if h e/she believes it is justified—can seek independent sources to attempt to verify t he tipster’s information. the social worker took the position that she had to enter every home no matt er what the allegation. there is no constitutional violation whatsoever—provided that there was no coercion. Little children can be traumatize d by investigations in ways that are unintended by the social worker.” Obviously. The misuse of anonymous tips are well-known. If the teacher says “Yes.

“When the father drinks. They will also misrepresent the condition of your home ev en if you were sick or injured and did not have a chance to straighten anything out. you should bring your chi ldren to the door but never open it. WRONG. precious resources are diverted from children who are truly in need o f protection when social workers are chasing false allegations breathed into a t elephone by a malicious anonymous tipster. There is no policy reason for keeping social workers or police officers in the dark. instead show them the children are not in i mminent danger and that they are fine. Something similar happened to the authors where DCF employees lied in front of t he judge. They have an end game in mine and they wil l misrepresent the facts and circumstances surrounding what may or may not have happened. address. The husband would like to know when this occurred because it did not hap pen when he was there. 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. So if a spouse lies and makes things up. You also need to know that if the focus of the inve stigation is on your spouse or significant other you may think you may not be ch arged with anything and that you are the non-offending spouse.” Now let’s translate those benign r esponses and see what CPS may write in her paperwork. It is also probable that those making maliciously fa lse allegations will simply hang up. On the other hand. he/she is also confe ssing that he allowed whatever he/she alleges. What you say will more then likely not be written down the way you said it or me ant it. If such a tipster is told: “May we plea se have your name. They said the husband was a victim of domestic violence even though al l five members of the family stated clearly that there was never any domestic vi olence. you have the legal right to deny them entry un der the 4th and 14th Amendment. They are equally well-served if malicious allegations can be screened out without the ne ed for invasion. you are probably going to get charged with allo wing it to happen. and phone number? We will keep this totally confiden tial. For example. If CPS shows up at your door and tells you they need to speak with you and your children. they could come back with an unlawful and unconstitutional warrant even t hough your children are not in imminent danger.” This is a f ar cry on what really took place in that conversation. Never give them a cha . Your response could be “yes we argue sometimes and he may raise his voice.” The next question is. CPS will not put anything exculpatory in the record so anyone that reads he r notes will read that the house was a mess and cluttered. Children are well-served when good faith allegations are investigated. “Does your husband drink alcohol?” Your re sponse could be “yes he has several drinks a week. There are a great number of reasons that the person being investigated shouldn’t know who made the call.officer does not know who the reporter is and has no evidence of the reliability of their report. If your sp ouse gets charged with anything. CPS routinely will take w hat you say out of context and actually lie in their reports in order to have a successful prosecution of their case. If you do not at least show them your chi ldren. “Does he yell at you and argue with you. But before they leave. Moreover. there is every reason to keep the name of the reporter confi dential. he yells at children and wife and wife is a victim of domestic violence.” it is highly probable that the vast majority of reports made in good faith will give such information. SECTION 3 NEVER EVER TRUST ANYONE FROM CPS/DCF You MUST understand that CPS will not give you or your spouse any Miranda warnin g nor do they have too. Everything CPS sees and hears is written down and eventually given to the AAG fo r your possible prosecution.

the “Defendants argue their en try into the home.” (Emphasis added) Darnold and Brown’s first argument. or any other agent of the state. The Fourth Amendment is applicable to DCF investigators in the con text of an investigation of alleged abuse or neglect as are all “government offici als. is to tell them you want your attorney there when they come and schedule a time for the mee ting. as it does to all other offic ers and agents of the state whose request to enter. likewise it is for CPS employees who are also gov ernment officials. Do not believe it. This will only speed up the process of terminating yo ur parental rights. The social workers. a DCF employee. Erie County Dept. Remember CPS has no statutory authority to enter your home when no crime has been committed.” The Court also stated “The Fourth Amendment’s prohi bition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies whenever an investigator. The best advice we can offer is b efore letting any CPS official in your home. These circumstances.” This issue is brought out best in Walsh v. created an ‘emergency situation’ that led Darnold and Brown reasonably to believe the Walsh children were in danger of im minent harm. CPS could care less about your rights or your children’s constitutional rights. case plan or menu. however benign or well-inten tioned. If it is unlawful and unconstitutional for the police who are government officials. The case plan or whatever they call it in your state is essentially a plea of guilty to the charges.” Further.” The social workers claimed. You are assi sting them in their case against you and in your own prosecution if you sign the ir agreements. responds to an alleged instance of child abuse. Do not sign anyth ing or agree to anything even if you are not guilty and you agree to go through some horse and pony show. b e it a police officer. argued that “the Fourth Amendment was not a pplicable to the activities of their social worker employees. and thus can be conducted without either a warrant or probable cause to believe that a child is at risk of imminen t harm. shot down by the court. and the plaintiff’s attempt to leave. even absent voluntary consent.nce to falsify the record or twist your words. Darnold and Brown. They will lie and say they have to come in and you have to comply. the defendants argue. Remember. Demand a trial at the very first hearing and n ever stipulate to anything. if you choose to do so. Force them to prove you are guilty. you are admitting to the abuse and/or neglect allegations and to the contents of the record. or dependency. and that the situati on with the Walsh children was an “emergency. SECTION 4 ARE ALL CPS WORKERS IN THE UNITED STATES SUBJECT TO THE 4TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT? Yes they are. Do not willingly admit to it by signing a case plan. Removing a child from a safe home is more harmful then most alleged alle gations as stated by many judges. your attorney may tell you to sign their agreement so you can get your children back sooner.” The court disagreed and ruled: “Despite the defendant’s exaggerated view of t heir powers.) The Court again disagreed and ruled: “There is nothing inherently un usual or dangerous about cluttered premises. neglect. of Job and Fami ly Services. Due to ignorance and/or incompetence. the Fourth Amendment applies to them. The social workers the n argued that there are exceptions to the Fourth Amendment. was reasonable under the circu mstances. That will be used against you as if you admitted to it .” They point to the anonymous complaint about clutter on the front porch. much less anything about such vague . (This is the old “emergency” excuse that has been used for years by soc ial workers. 3:01-cv-7588. “entries into private homes by child welfare workers involve neither sear ches nor seizures under the Fourth Amendment. are met by a closed door. If you agree to it and sign it. They are trained to lie to you to get in any w ay they can and this comes from interviewing employees at DCF.

claimed that they could not be sued beca use they thought the social workers were not subject to the Fourth Amendment.” The social workers.” In other wor ds.” SECTION 5 THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT SAID. even without prior judicial approval. thus perception that c hildren may be at some risk. they could not be sued for their “mistake. 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. There likewise can be no doubt that occasi ons arise calling for immediate response. few families are secure and few homes are safe from unwelcome and unjustified intrusion by st ate officials and officers. and insufficient medical care and. an d they were just helping the social workers. Brown. The social workers.” The Court then lowers the boom by stating: “The claims of defendants Dar nold. (1999) “invol ves whether a social worker and a police officer were entitled to qualified immu nity.” . The Court continues with their chastisement of the social workers: “There can be n o doubt that the state can and should protect the welfare of children who are at risk from acts of abuse and neglect. “Against these fundamental rights. overcrowding. conducting an investigation pursuant to § 2151. 9th Cir. PARENTS HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE BY CPS AND THE POLICE. In this case. and could not have been.” The police officers. the defendants contend that Ohio’s statutory framework for learning about and investig ation allegations of child abuse and neglect supersede their obligations under t he Fourth Amendment.421(A)(1)(b). for a coerced entry into a home to investigate suspected child abuse.” The Court continues: “The anonymous phone call in this case did not constitute a ‘report’ of child abuse or neglect. Otherwise child welfare workers would hav e a free pass into any home in which they have an anonymous report or poor house keeping. they we re not. Darnold and Brown.421 of the Ohio Revised code as authority for their warrantless entry into and search of the plaintiff’s home. The social workers argued.” The social worker’s third argument. shot down by the court. Da rnold and Brown. claiming qualifie d immunity because “they had not had training in Fourth Amendment law. a rational jury could find that ‘no evidence points to the opposite conclusion’ and a lack of ‘sufficient exigent circu mstances to relieve the state actors here of the burden of obtaining a warrant. inte rrogation of a child. “They have failed to show th at any exigency that justifies warrantless entry was necessary to protect the we lfare of the plaintiff’s children. because they thought the Fourth Amendment did not bind them. The Court disagreed and ruled: “The defendant’s argument that the duty to investigat e created by § 2151.ly described conditions that could manifest imminent or even possible danger or harm to young children. and strip search of a child. Chandler and Kish of qualified immunity are therefore denied. and that supersedes the Fo urth Amendment. conducted without a search wa rrant and without a special exigency.’ T he social workers’ second argument. Chandler and Kish.” This is the old “mandatory reporter” excuse.421(F)(1) exempts them from the Fourth Amendment misses the ma rk because. then argued that they are obligated under law to investigate any reported case of child abuse.” The Court went on to rule. shot down by the court. claimed that they were immune from liability. The Court disagreed and ruled: “That subjective basis for their ignorance about and actions in violation of the Fourt h Amendment does not relieve them of the consequences of that ignorance and thos e actions.42 1(F)(1). If household ‘clutter’ justifies warrantless entry and threa ts of removal of children and arrest or citation of their parents. not having received a report described in § 2151. Floyd. But those instances are the exception. Calabretta v. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case. They point principally to § 2151.

We held in White v. had there been reason to fear imminent harm to a child. Furthermore. Koehler Family. In North Hudson DYFS v. houses … ’ without limiting that right to one kind of government official. or local. a child welfare investigation case.” (emphasis added) In other words. one to which we have no occasion to speak. 2000. or government agency. 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 wer e not wearing socks in the winter or sleep in beds. had the social worker or police officer been alar med. 2d 812 (9th Cir. … The f ourth Amendment preserves the ‘right of the people to be secure in their persons. “had the i nformation been more alarming. not to protect the government from th e people. And within those documents. “The police officer was there to back up the social worker’s insistence on entry against the mother’s will. police could not ente r a dwelling without a warrant even under statutory authority where probable cau se existed. A reasonable official wo uld understand that they could not enter the home without consent or a search wa rrant. absent exigent circumstances.) The Court’s reasoning for this ruling was simple and straight forward: “The reasonab le expectation of privacy of individuals in their homes includes the interests o f both parents and children in not having government officials coerce entry in v iolation of the Fourth Amendment and humiliate the parents in front of the child ren.The court did not agree that the social worker and the police officer had “qualifi ed immunity” and said. this would be a dif ferent case. filed December 18. Any government official (CPS) can be held to know that their office does not give them unrestr icted right to enter people’s homes at will. or federal government. Pierce County (79 7 F.” The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals defines the law and states “In our circuit.” And there we have it: “Any government official can be held to know that their offi ce does not give them an unrestricted right to enter peoples’ homes at will. the people have the constitutional right t o hold the government accountable when it does deny its citizens their rights un der the law even if it is CPS. a rea sonable official would have known that the law barred this entry.’ The principle that government officials cannot coerce entry into peop le’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 reasonabl e officer would know it. “the facts in this case are noteworthy for the absence of eme rgency. the Appellate c ourt granted the emergency application on February 6. After reviewing the briefs o . that ‘it was sett led constitutional law that. 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 wo rkers especially when they attempt to coerce or threaten to call the police so t hey can conduct their investigation.” SECTION 6 PARROTING OF THE PHRASE “BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD” WITHOUT SUPPORTING FACTS OR A L EGAL BASIS IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A WARRANT OR COURT ORDER TO ENTER A HOME. “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. not because he perceived an y imminent danger of harm. 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. the police.” And he should have known better.” No one was in distress.” (The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written to protect the people from the government. 2001. 1986). state .

Pierce County a child welfare investigation case. 01-3648. We held in White v. Considering that one critical purpose of the to determine whether or not the child is in o require a high threshold level of evidence d. First. from who seems t to commence the interview of a chil property.” February 14. none o f the exceptions to the Warrant Clause apply in this situation. a court order is the equ ivalent of a warrant. when conducted on private property without “co nsent. Any government official can be held to know that their office does not giv e them an unrestricted right to enter peoples’ homes at will. . “In our circuit. that ‘it was settled constitutio nal law that. The decision in the case of Doe et al.S.K.’ because there is.f all the parties.” (Emphasis added) Tenenbaum v. According to the Court. . it is not based on “best interest of the child” or personal feeling.’). In other words. a juvenile judge’s decision on whether or not to issue a warrant i s a legal one. Williams. 602 ( 2nd Cir. a reasonable official would have known that the law barred this e ntry. . 193 F. v.” The Court went on to say. Heck et al (No. F. will ordinarily constitute a “clear violation” of the constitutional rights of parents under the 4th and 14th Amendments to the U. whether the child is on private or public early stages of an investigation is danger. time enough to apply to a magistrate for an ex parte removal order. “[m]ere parro ting 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 o ther ground. or exigent circumstances. 1999).3d 581. a court order is the equivalent of a . the investigative interview of a child constitutes a “search and seizure” and. Wisc onsin. S. probable cause. Id. Hat ter. If a court issues a warrant based on an uncorroborat ed anonymous tip. possibly the owner of the private property.” such an interview is an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the rights of the parent. and.2d 851. 2003 US App. “[a]bsent some tangible evidence of abuse or neglect. 483 U. Anonymous tips are never probable cause. “[I]n context of a seizure of a child by the State during an abuse investigation . police could not enter a dwelling wi thout a warrant even under statutory authority where probable cause existed. the warrant will not survive a judicial challenge in the highe r courts. that is “no p rior consent” interview of a child. as noted by the Second Circuit.W. and if so. The Court explaine d. The de cision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found that this practice. including ‘exigent circumstances coupled with probable cause. the appellate court ruled that the order to investigate the K oehler home was in violation of the law and must be reversed. See State v. chi ld. absent exigent circumstances. Constitution. ‘[I]n context of a seizure of a child by the State during an abuse investigation . the Courts do not authori ze fishing expeditions into citizens’ houses. a warrant. The United States Supreme Court has held that courts may not use a different sta ndard other than probable cause for the issuance of such orders. v.’ The principle that government officials cannot coerce entry into peoples’ houses witho ut a search warrant or applicability of an established exception to the requirem ent 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. by definition. 855 (Iowa 1983) (holding the exigent circumstances exception to the Warrant Clause only applies when ‘an immediate major crisis in the perform ance of duty afforded neither time nor opportunity to apply to a magistrate. 342N.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. Iowa district Court for Polk County. 868 (1987). Se cond. . Lexis 7144) will affect the manner in which law enforcement and child protective services investigations of alleged child abuse or neglect are conducted. 2001.” SECTION 7 THE U. Griffin v.

. This idea of not complying with the 4th and 14th Amendme nts is so impregnated in their statutes. This happens thousands of times every d ay in the United States where the end justifies the mean even if it is unlawful.3d 1126 (9th Cir. F. Good v.’ Calabretta v. kidnapping children and then were prosecuted for their actions . It aff ects all and what they do. Ill-c onsidered and improper governmental action may create significant injury where n o problem of any kind previously existed. Goo d holds that a search warrant or exigent circumstances. 200 0). DCF is the “moving force” behind the on-going violations of federal law and violatio ns of the Constitution. In cases of alleged child abuse.” This was the case involving DCF in Connecticut. 1989) held that a social wor ker 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.’ Id. The following statistics represent th e number of cases per 100. 189 F. They even have crossed state lines impe rsonating police. Id. 202 F. was necessary for an entry without consent. indeed. The 9th Circuit further opined in Wallis v. the state is constrained by the substantive and procedural guarantees of the Constitution. neglect and even killed at the hands of Child Protective Services.3d 581. But none of the regulations cited say that the so cial worker may force her way into a home without a search warrant in the absenc e of any emergency. that ‘[b]ecause the swing of every pendulum brings with it potential adverse c onsequences.warrant. as wi th the investigation and prosecution of all crimes. Da uphin County Social Servs. and the anonymous tip claiming bruises was in the case i nsufficient to establish special exigency. Further. 1999). practices and customs.” Another recent 9th Circuit case also held that there is no exception to the warr ant requirement for social workers in the context of a child abuse investigation . We can tell you stories for hours where CPS employees committed criminal acts an d were prosecuted and went to jail and/or were sued for civil rights violations. it is important to emphasize that in the area of child abuse. and kidnapped children without court orders. that they can do basically do anything they want including engaging in deception. asked others to lie. governmental failure to abide by constitutional constraints may have deleteriou s long-term consequences for the child and.000 children in the United States and includes DCF in . 193 F. at 1130-1131. Otherwise. DCF takes on the persona of the feeling of exaggerate d power over parents and that they are totally immune. ‘The [California] regulations they cite require social workers to respond to var ious contacts in various ways. Williams. Iowa d istrict Court for Polk County. CPS workers have lied in reports and court documents. intimidate and to threatened innocent families with gov ernmental 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 pre sent.K. It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse. misrepresentat ion of the facts and lying to the judge. 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 par ties. Spencer. DCF has unlawful polices giving worke rs permission to coerce.2d 1087 (3rd Cir. such as a need to protec t a child against imminent danger of serious bodily injury. Many of their policies are unlaw ful and contradictory to the Constitution.3d 808 (9th Cir. illegal and unconstitutional. serious injustices may result. 602 (2nd Cir. v.’ Tenenbaum v. for the entire family. 1999) Calabretta also cites various cases form other jurisdictions for its conclusion. 891 F. Floyd. There are also a number of documented cases where the case worker killed the c hild. policies.

CPS nationwide is guilty of more h uman rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which they wer e removed. neglect. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said it best. invaded a family home without a warrant violating the Fourth Amendment rights of both children and parents.000 children. Police officers are not exempt from the requirement even if all they do is get t he front door open for the social worker. If a social worker says. But the second part of the rule is the most important in this context. 6. police officers.Connecticut.3d 808 (1999). the Ninth Circuit held that the Fourth Amendment applies just as much to a child abuse investigation a s it does to any criminal or other governmental investigation. in pursuit of a child abuse investigation. If the citizens of this country hold CPS to the s ame standards that they hold parents too. Perpetrators of Maltreatment Physical Abuse Sexual Abuse Neglect Medical Neglect Fatalities CPS 160 112 410 14 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that are suppos ed to protect them and only 1. Social workers ar e not exempt from the requirements of the Fourth Amendment when they act alone. “The govern ment’s interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children f rom physical abuse. Upon remand for the da mages phase of the trial.000. I will take your children a way” –a parent who then opens the door has not given free and voluntary consent. Floyd. When are the judges going to wake up and see that they are sending ch ildren to their death and a life of abuse when children are removed from safe ho mes based on the mere opinion of a bunch of social workers. but also protecting children’s interest in the privacy and dig nity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents. Contrary to the assumption of hundreds of social workers. 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. They are not exempt from its rules if they are accompanied by a police officer.5 Imagine that. and governments t hat employed them settled this civil rights case for $150. the social workers. “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. SECTION 9 WHEN IS CONSENT NOT CONSENT? If a police officer says. 189 F. and sexual abuse and kills more children then parents in the United States. “if you don’t let me in the home.4 Parents 59 13 241 12 1. This information is from The National Center on Child Abuse and Neg lect (NCCAN) in Washington. this would be intimidation. The general rule is that unreasonable searches and seizures are banned.” Cal abretta v. A ll warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable. CP S perpetrates more abuse.5 at the hands of parents per 100. which held that social workers who. “I will get a warrant from the judge or I will call the poli .00. SECTION 8 THE FOURTH AMENDMENT’S IMPACT ON CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATIONS. coercion a nd threatening. This statement came in a case. If a social worker says.

State Department of Human Resources. The social worker(s) would lose thei r qualified immunity for their deprivation of rights and can be sued. 1987). 361 US (1960) SECTION 10 PROBABLE CAUSE & EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES The Fourth Amendment does not put a barrier in the way of a social worker who ha s reliable evidence that a child is in imminent danger. Consent to warrantless entry must be voluntary and not the result of duress or c oercion. Coercive or intimidating beh avior supports a reasonable belief that compliance is compelled. In H. “My name is Mildred Smith. age 5. 868 (1987). Coercion can be mental as well as physical. 2d 504 (9th Cir. would satisfy the legal test of reliability. Many socia l workers and Child Protection Services (“CPS”) lose their cases in court because th eir entry into homes was in violation of the parents civil rights because the ev idence in their possession did not satisfy the standard of probable cause. Florida v.S. The United States Supreme Cour t has held that courts may not use a different standard other than probable caus e for the issuance of such orders. ANY type of communication. 938 F. Citizens do not forfeit their constituti onal rights when they are coerced to comply with a request that they would prefe r to refuse. Alabama. Since the report has been received over the telephone. the warrant will not survive a judicial challenge in the higher courts. Bustamonte. as have numerous other decisions. Bostick. Wilson. but to allow entry negates any claim that the entry was lawfully gained through the channel o f consent. 412 US 218 (1973 ). No warrant shall be issued but on probable cause. 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 pro bable cause. 1991). The Calabretta court held the same thing. Tack ett. Lack of intelligence. For example. Ct. which is necessary to establish pr obable cause. 1992). Children are not well served if they are subjected to investigations base on fal . “Consent” that is the product of official intimidati on or harassment is not consent at all. A quick verification of the relationship can be made in a variety of ways and once verified. here is my address and phone number. 834 F.R. DCF’s policy clearly tells the social worker that they can threaten par ents even if the parents assert their 4th Amendment rights. Lion Boulos v. Wisconsin. The Fourth Amendment itself spells out the evidence required for a warrant or entry order. Blac kburn v. I was visiting my grandchildren this morning and I discovered that one of my grandchildren. v. Anonymous tips are n ever probable cause. Griffin v. Anonymous phone calls cannot stand the test of probable cause as defined within the 14th A mendment and would fail in court on appeal. 501 US 429 (1991). 612 S o. App. the informant. is being locked in his bedroom without food for days at a time. The evidence must also pass a test of reliability that our justice sy stem calls probable cause. not understanding the right not to consent. if a hot li ne call comes in and says.2d 477 (Ala. It is not enough to have information that the children are in some form of serio us danger. or tr ickery invalidate voluntary consent. One’s awareness of his or her right to refuse consent to warrantless entry is r elevant to the issue of voluntariness of alleged content.ce if you do not let me in” negate consent. 483 U. Anonymous phone calls fail the second part of the two-prong requir ement of “exigent circumstances” and “probable cause” for a warrant or order. which conve ys the idea to the parent that they have no realistic alternative. Schneckloth v. the court held that an anonymous tip standing alo ne never amounts to probable cause. Cassady v. it is possible that the t ipster is an imposter and not the child’s grandmother. 2d (6th Cir. which have faced the issue directly. If a court issues a warrant based on an uncorroborated anonymous tip. Johnny.

The misuse of anonymous tips is well known.S.” During the trial. the suit challenged the practice of New York’s City’s Administration for Chi ldren’s Services of removing the children of battered mothers solely because the c hildren saw their mothers being beaten by husbands or boyfriends. Williams. and the impact on children of being remo ved from the non-offending parent. It is very dangerous when governmental officials are allowed to have unfettered access to a citizen’s home. All citizens have the right to know their accuser/witnes s in order to preserve the sanctity of the rule of law and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.S. Eastern District of New York. neighborhood squ abbles. If the governmen t becomes a law-breaker. 277 U. Crime is contagious. Little children can be traumatized by investigations in ways tha t are unintended by the social worker. v. SECTION 11 IS IT ILLEGAL AND AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRACTICE FOR CPS TO REMOVE CHILDREN BECAUS E THEY WITNESS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE? Yes it is illegal and an unconstitutional practice to remove children which resu lts in punishing the children and the non-offending parent as stated. Olmstead. several leading national experts testified on the impact on ch ildren of witnessing domestic violence.se allegations. In a landm ark class action suit in the U.: 00-c v-2229. U. It invites anarchy.S. existence of government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. from an examination by a doctor when their mother is present and cooperating. disputes on the Little League field. Our government is the potent. ARE PARENTS GUILTY OF MALTREATMENT OR EMOTIONAL NEGLECT IF THE CHILD WITNESSES DOMESTIC VIOLENCE? “Not according to Judge Weistein’s ruling and to the leading national experts. However.S. Case No. It is also very dangerous to allow CPS to violate the confrontation clause in the 6th Amendment were CPS hides. it teaches the whole people by example. U. We the people of the United States are ruled by law. nos ey individuals who are attempting to impose their views on others are turned int o maliciously false allegations breathed into a hotline. not by feelings. For good or il l. we become a nation without law that makes decisions based on subjectivity and objectivity. Justice Brandeis. CPS has been allowed to bastardize and emasculate the Constitution and the right s of its citizens to be governed by the rule of men rather then the rule of law. District Judge Jack Weinsein ruled on Nicholson v. and defining witnessing domestic violence by children as maltre atment or emotional neglect is a mistake. security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be sub ject to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. to a small child all they know i s that a strange adult is taking off their clothing while their mother is sobbin g in the next room in the presence of an armed police officer. omnipresent teacher. In a government o f laws. It allows those individuals to have a safe haven to file fraudulent reports and CPS aids and abets in this violation of fundamental rights. it breeds contempt for the law. This does not see m to a child to be a proper invasion of their person –quite different. If the cou rts allow states and their agencies to rule by feelings and not law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself. for example . revenge. Views of Experts on Effects of Domestic Viole nce on Children. District Court. 438 ( 1928). child custody battles. Concerned about the risk adult domestic violence poses for child . conceals and covers u p the accuser/witness who makes the report. Judge Weistein ruled that the practice is unconstitutional and he ordered it stopped. “Decency. A “great concern [regarding] how increas ed awareness of children’s exposure [to domestic violence] and associated problems is being used. Personal vendettas.

Washington county. Thus. (1992) State empl oyees who withhold a child from her family infringe on the family’s liberty of fam ilial association. v. SECTION 12 DO CHILDREN HAVE LEGAL STANDING TO SUE CPS FOR THEIR ILLEGAL ABDUCTION FROM THEI R HOME AND VIOLATING THEIR 4TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS? Yes they do. 7th Ci r. Dr. Mercer County. Ward v. which can be much more dangerous and debilitating than the home situation. (1990) The forced separation of parent from child. 141b . 7th Cir. some child protection agencies in the United States appear to be defining e xposure to domestic violence as a form of child…Defining witnessing as maltreatmen t is a mistake. Dr. Parents also have legal standing to sue if CPS violated their 4th and 14th Amendment rights. J. 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.” Ex. 139 at 5. Stark testified that foster homes are rarely screened for the pr esence of violence. Pelcovitz stated that “taking a child whose greatest fear is sep aration from his or her mother and in the name of ‘protecting’ that child [by] forci ng on them. Automatically defining witnessing as maltreatment may als o ignore battered mother’s efforts to develop safe environments for their children and themselves. 1562-63. then he or she may view such removal as “a traumatic act of punishment … and [think] tha t something that [he] or she has done or failed to do has caused this separation . through Murphy v. For those children who are in homes where there is domestic violence. EFFECTS OF REMOVALS ON CHILDREN AND NON-OFFENDING PARENT. Wolf testified that disruptions in the parent-child relationship might provo ke fear and anxiety in a child and diminish his or her sense of stability and se lf.ren. 10th Ci r. Morgan. Tr 1596. Another serious implication of removal is that it introduces children to the fos ter care system.H. Ex. Doing so ignores the fact that large numbers of children in thes e studies showed no negative development problems and some showed evidence of st rong coping abilities. Childr en in foster care often fail to receive adequate medical care. Dr. Brokaw v.” Ex. represents a serious infringement upon the rights of both. he or she show s distress … At first. 122 at 3-4. though still hyper vigilant. the child is very anxious and protests vigorously and angri ly. school and sib lings. and that the incidence of abuse and child fatality in foster homes is double that in the general population. waiting. Tr 565-65. San Jose. 565-67.B. looking. Stark (Yale New Haven Hospital researcher) asserted that if a c hild is placed in foster care as a result of domestic violence in the home. Then he falls into a sense of despair. their worst nightmare. what is in effect. Ex. disruption of that bond can be even more traumatic than situations where this is no domest ic violence. See also Ex. He described the typical response of a child separated from his parent: “When a young child is separated from a parent unwillingly. Dr. (2000) A child has a constitutionally protected interest in the companionship and society of his or her parents. 122 at 6. children have standing to sue for their removal after they reach th e age of majority. 122 at 8. 163 at 866. Tr. Ex. (1997) Parent’s interest is of “the highest order. Children have a Constitutional right to live wit h their parents without government interference.” And the court recognizes “the vit al importance of curbing overzealous suspicion and intervention on the part of h . … is tantamount to pouring s alt on an open wound. 9th Cir.” Tr. Fos ter care placements can disrupt the child’s contact with community. even for a short time. short periods of parent al absence may seem longer than for older children. K. for younge r children whose sense of time is less keenly developed.

After having worked with congressional staff on the Education and Workforce Com mittee and with the legal counsel of the U.” the Illinois Department of Education has finally relented. the Blunts. U. Police do not g et involved in civil matters if it truly is one. The letter stated that according to the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004. these private school children taught at home have access to sp ecial needs educational support through the public schools.pdf and a Mic rosoft Word versionhttp://www.gov/ocr/howtofileprivacy. They wi ll tell you that what they are involved in is a civil matter not a criminal matt er.) Remember. had received a letter from the Director of Speci al Education of their local school district.S. . both the sender and rec eiver violated the law. the sch ool district was no longer required to offer special education services to any p rivate school that was not state recognized. Yo ur children’s records are protected by FERPA and HIPAA regarding your children’s edu cational and medical records. You will regret letting them in your home and speaking with them like the thousands of other parents who have g one through this. You need to file a HIPAA complaint on the sender and the receiver. Refusing them entry is NOT hindering an investigation. you o nly have 180 days from the time you found out about it. Scan Volunteer Ser vices. K now your choices. 8th Cir. (1996) You must protect you and your child’s rights. It is a criminal matter disguised as a civil matter.” Thomason v. (See PDF versionhttp://www. Inc. CPS has no power. They need a lawful warrant like the police under t he “warrant clause” to seize any records. Department of Education for the la st 10 years on this issue. When you ask a friend. If your child’s school records contain medic al records. He informed school officials that special need s services must be restored to the Blunt family’s child. 2006 After a legal letter “tug-of-war. CPS will leave you alone or y ou can get your kids back.hhs. DO NOT sign anyth ing. CPS or the juvenile judge cannot abrogate that right as long as your children are not in imminent danger. Tell them to go packing. several Illinois member families contacted HSLDA because t heir special education services with their local public schools had been suddenl y terminated.doc. One member family.gov/ocr/howtofileprivacy. HSLDA Senior Counsel Chris Klicka drafted a letter on behalf of the Blunts expl aining the school district’s error.ealth care professionals and government officials. In December of 2005. SECTION 13 SCHOOLS ARE REQUIRED TO OFFER SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES TO HOMESCHOOLERS Special Education Services Reinstated for Homeschoolers. Their General Counsel contacted the Home School Legal Defense Associa tion and has apologized for their erroneous memorandum of 2005 that effectively cut off special needs services to homeschoolers throughout the state.hhs. March 15. do not agree to a drug s creen or a psychological evaluation. it will come back to be used against you in any possible kangaroo trial. When the school or doctor sends records to CPS or allows them to view them without your permission. like Illinois. Tell them they need a la wful warrant to make you do anything. 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. CPS has no legal right to enter your home or speak to you and your child when there in no imminent danger present. it is a Fourth Amendment protection. That is an incorrect assumption. they will tell you if you agree to services. the HSLDA legal staff knew that the letter the family received contained erroneous information. then HIPAA also applies.S. There is nothing civil about allegations of child abuse or neglect. Don’t you believe it. Department of Education official s have assured us that in states where homeschools are considered private school s. family member or someone at work what t o do..

300. Somewhat apologetic. DCF and the school system lacks all jurisdition and control of the c hild because the parent acts in the best interest of the child not the governmen t.452 apply when deciding whether to provide special educ ation or related services to a child with disabilities who is being educated at home. The state can’t act in the child’s best interest without the requsite proof of pa rental unfitness.” The above report makes it crystal clear that if the state recognizes a home educ ation program as a private school in that state. 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. Follow the money trail.Shortly after sending the letter. A child’s educational needs has nothing to do with serious abuse and neglect and the courts and CPS/DCF lack jurisdiction. Klicka’s letter also specifically demanded a response within 10 days and that the memorandum be corrected. SECTION 14 FEDERAL RULING UPHOLDS THAT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS CAN’T ACT IN THE CHILD BEST INTER EST WHEN IT COMES TO SPECIAL-NEEDS CHILDREN. The memorandum defined eligibility b ased on whether the student was enrolled in a “state recognized private school. assuring him that they will revise their memorandum s oon by removing the offensive language requiring a private school to be “state rec ognized” before its students could be eligible for special education services. they admitted their error. In short. The Illinois Supreme Court held that no accred itation is necessary.403 and 300. Within the requested time. the boards of educations get funding by every label they slap on a child. Parents have the absolute choice and legal option to refuse any testing or se rvices that the state has to offer especially if it is funded. the Federal Director of Special Education in a letter procured by HSLDA stated: “The determination of whether a home education arrangement constitutes private sch ool placement must be made on the basis of state law. then the requirements of Regs. In federal rep orts regarding issues surrounding those eligible for IDEA. if home education co nstitutes enrollment in a private school under state law.” The memorandum was inaccurate and contradicted federal law. The only thing the state or board of education in this country can do is OFF ER the testing and services and make it available to home school students … that’s i t. Illinois special education home school students will once again be able to rece ive needed educational services. then those home-educated studen ts are eligible for the services. in Illinois.. Klicka received a phone call from the General Counse l and a special director Illinois Department of Education. Parents can refus e federally funded services and seek out private educators and testing when it c omes to the child educational needs. and therefore. HSLDA received a letter from the school distr ict’s attorney. when a parent desides to home school or private school their children. Thus. The letter stated that the 2005 memorandum in question had been dr afted by the Illinois State Department of Education’s Assistant Superintendent as “i nterim guidance” for Illinois public schools. Under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”) it DOES NOT compel l the state or boards of educations to test every child. home-educated students are eligibl e for special education services. they would call child protection and file a false report. . the state. When parents refused testing because board of educations lack jur isdiction. just like child protection. The issue of whether home-educated students are eligible to receive special edu cation services had already been acknowledged at a federal level. it’s just a funding statu te. The boards of educations in the state of Connecticut and the other 49 states hav e misapplied and abused IDEA and harmed children and families by forcing home sc hool children to be tested when they are not required to do so and acting outsid e the statute.

Mason III. and they d ecided to obtain private special education services for him.” said HS LDA litigation counsel James R. March 2. Thomas M. “The court recognized that homeschooling parents may provide for the special needs of their children without undue interference from meddling school officia ls. not child protection and their untrained govern ment workers. not the court or the state. the new law makes it clear homescho olers do not have to obtain a GED which carries the stigma of being a dropout. T he bill was signed into law by President Bush last January. 2006 Homeschool Graduates Enlisting in the Military Protected by New Law There is more good news for homeschool graduates seeking to enlist in the Armed Services. CPS/DCF workers think they are doing something great when in reali ty they are harming the most inocent among us. which agreed with the s chool district. however. SECTION February 2. from public school after years of disagreement wi th the school over the provision of special education services. The Fitzgeralds h ad withdrawn their son. The Eighth Circuit reversed these decisions. HSLDA appealed to the federal district court. The ne w law specifies that the uniform policy is for the purposes of recruitment and e nlistment of homeschoolers. T he services that are all federally funded that CPS/DCF gets paid for are to be o ffered to parents. The following ruling upholds the parent’s right to reject and refuse services from CPS/DCF. Sean*. and expressly w aive all benefits under the IDEA. Although there is no discrimination currently being practiced through any forma l policies in the military against homeschool graduates. 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 s chool districts may not force homeschooled children to submit to special-needs e valuations against their parents’ wishes.” HSLDA is representing another member family in New York where a public school di strict seeks to evaluate their child. an evaluation would have no purpose. which includes Misso uri where the Fitzgeralds reside. the board of education or any other agency. An administrative panel agreed with the school district and ordered the family to submit to the e valuation.” As reported in the January/February 2005 Court Report. HSLDA has been defending the Fitzgerald family’s right to privacy for almost three years. An amendment to Section 522 of Senate Bill 1042. demanded that the parents permit a public school evaluation for special needs. they had his special needs privately evaluated. the new policy will not discriminate agai . held that the federal Individuals with Disabil ities in Education Act (“IDEA”) does not give public schools jurisdiction over homes chooled children who may have special needs.This is the big lie that child protection is perpetrating across this country. Furthermore. . When they starte d homeschooling Sean. “Where a home-schooled child’s parents refuse consent [for an evaluation]. [A] district may not force an evaluation under the circumstances in this case. the new law will virtua lly eliminate the concern that discrimination could happen in the future. Therefore. “This victory is going to help homeschooling families all over the country. The school district. Dutkiewicz Eighth Circuit Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Homeschoolers. . who argued the case in the Eighth Cir cuit. requires the Secretary of Defe nse to create a uniform policy for recruiting homeschool graduates for all four branches of the Armed Services. * Name changed to protect family’s privacy. parents feel what is in the best interest of the child and the entire family. . Only parents know what’s in the bes t interest of their child. if any. privately educate the child. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. even though it admitted that it could not force th e family to accept any actual services from the public school. Parents ultimately make the decision on what services. not forced down parents throats.

THEY ARE UNLAWFUL. local recruiters will be able to properly advise homeschoolers. Ko lder. whi ch then reported positive cocaine results to law enforcement officers. Parsons. Homeschool graduates who desire a career with any of the four Armed Services ar e currently designated as “preferred enlistees.S. a case considering the constitutionality of a governmental policy of surreptitiously drug testing pregnant women in a South Carolina hospital. it was not renewed. and the January 2005 directive from the Department of Defense. began working with HSLDA to resolve every problem at the local rec ruitment level with homeschool graduates. homeschoolers will receive the same educational benefits.nst homeschoolers because the goal is recruitment and not exclusion. the Department of Defense issued a letter stating that homeschoolers were considered “preferred enlistees” and that the re were no “practical limits” to the numbers of homeschoolers who could obtain entra nce into the Armed Services. s imply because she “lack[ed] motivation or [the] ability to seek medical care” (V. HSLDA has been working with the military for several years to remove discrimina tory barriers for homeschool graduates. No. Ferguson v. Gallagher. actin g without either a warrant or individualized suspicion. J. City o f Charleston. Though th e legal question is narrow — whether the Fourth Amendment permits the state. City of Charleston: Social and Legal Contexts (11/1/2000) Policing Pregnancy: Ferguson v. and available positions in the Armed Services that they would receive if they were Tier I candidates. many of these d ecisions came too late to prevent unwarranted suffering and to protect women fro . thousands of homeschoolers are serving our country f aithfully in the Armed Services. HSLDA c ontacted the Administration and explained our situation. A meeting was arranged for us with the Assistant Secretary of Defense and a few other Pentagon official s a month later. Fortunately. as the new policy is implem ented. they’ve been ordered to have their cervixes sewn up to prevent miscarriage. Supreme Court heard arguments in Ferguson v. the Department of Defense.” This means that homeschool graduate s who enlist in the military will be treated as if they are Tier I candidates ev en though their formal status will remain Tier II. Pregn ant women have been forced to undergo unwanted cesareans. Over time. as in the case of one young woman. at the hi ghest levels. the U. to drug test pregnant wo men who seek prenatal care in a public hospital — the case points to broader issue s concerning the right of pregnant women to be treated as fully autonomous under the Constitution. SECTION 15 SURREPTITIOUSLY DRUG TESTING OF PREGNANT WOMEN FOR THE ALLEDGED BENEFIT OF THEIR FETUSES ARE NOT ONLY MISGUIDED AS A MATTER OF POLICY. At that point. Therefore. City of Charleston On October 4.” New E ngland Journal of Medicine (1987) 316. HSLDA secured a pilot project that lasted six years where homeschoolers were experimentally categoriz ed as Tier I candidates. As a result of the meeting in January 2005. the state has increasingly intruded into the lives of pregnant women. 2000. which is the same status as high school graduates from public schools. and they’ve been detained. 2004. cash bonuses. In the past several years. policing their conduct in the name of protecting fetuses. As a result of the 1998-2004 pilot project. Beginning in 1998. 19: 1195). and M. Although the program continued until October. they’ve been incarcerated for consuming alcohol. Unfortunately. “Court-Ordered Obstetrical Interventions. in many of these cases the invasive state actions have been rescind ed by higher officials or rejected by the courts.

Recent studies done in hospitals and health-care centers in San Diego. the Charleston County Solicitor’s Office (the prosecuto r). an interagency group consisting of representatives from the City of Cha rleston Police Department. 1993). isolating them in their dr ug use rather than helping them have healthy pregnancies and healthy babies (L. When 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 ad ults. Analysis of a Hospital Maternal Cocaine Testing Policy: In Ass ociation with Prenatal Care Utilization Patterns. tested positive for cocaine. MUSC’s policy appears to have driven drug-usin g women out of the health-care system in that region. Arguments Against Policing Pregnancy Punishing women who use drugs during pregnancy deters them from seeking critical prenatal care and entering drug treatment programs. In October 1994. including no or minimal prenatal care. nonetheless . tw o drug-treatment programs in Columbia. The punitive approach to drug use during pregnancy also stops women from partici pating in drug-treatment programs. still bleeding and dressed in only a hospital gown. 6.G . Authorities arrested another woman soon after she gave birth .m being deprived of their rights. One woman spent the last three wee ks of her pregnancy in jail. reported a precipitous drop in the nu mber of pregnant women entering their facilities. 192). separation of th e placenta from the uterine wall. punitive measures have the op posite effect. unexplained preterm labor. birth defects or poor fetal growth. 29 were Af rican American. If the goal is to protect f etuses and to help women become drug-free mothers. Indeed. indicate that when pregnant women fear that they will be prosecuted for their drug use. MUSC subjected pregnant women to warrantless searches if they met any one of several criteria.. In total. however. If they failed to follow through on treatment or if they tested positive a seco nd time. after the Civil Rights Division of the U. making it clear that pregnant women are not wards of the state. Killing the Black Body. and Detroit. the prosecutor’s office added an “amnesty” component to the policy: women tes ting positive for cocaine were given the “option” of drug treatment to avoid arrest. involving the Easely Baptist Medical Center. Under the policy. Roberts. Cornelia Whitner. SC. she was handcuffed and tak en to the city jail (Petitioners’ brief in Ferguson. 30 women were arrested under the policy. 7). they do not seek prenatal care and will even c hoose to deliver their babies at home (D. for example. Tribble et al. they were arrested. In 1990. a history of drug or alcohol abuse. During this time she received prenatal care in hand cuffs and shackles. NY: P antheon Books (1997). a young woman. Following the publicity surrounding this case. The Facts in Ferguson In 1989. and the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC. or intraut erine fetal death. women were immediately arrested after they o r their newborns tested positive for cocaine. One clinic found that between . MUSC dr opped its program.S. In the early months of the program. Chicago. In another high-profile South Carolina case. a public hospital in Cha rleston) developed and implemented the Interagency Policy on Cocaine Abuse in Pr egnancy. wa s arrested for “endangering the life of her unborn child” and sentenced to eight yea rs in prison after she gave birth to a healthy baby boy whose urine. Department of Healt h and Human Services began investigating whether the hospital in carrying out th e policy had violated the civil rights of its African American patients.

Making Women Pay: The Hidden Costs of Fetal Rights. And surely if they did. the American Public Health Association. the National Association of Social Workers. however. 3: 1-24). It 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. and their families.1996 and 1997. and autonomy as other free adults. though the Constitution does not. Ithaca. No. and the Ma rch of Dimes. It is doubtful. numerous medical and public-health organizations have denoun ced the practice. R. . the American Medical Women’s Association. such as cocaine. . a crime in South Carolina” to “smoke. Pregnant women have as great a right to privacy. . Imagine if the tides were turned. the National Council on Alcoho lism and Drug Dependence. this is not such a far-fetched scenario (I. MUSC’s drug testing policy did just that. the state attorney general hastily recalled the pamphlet and issued a statement that only pregnant women who use illegal drugs would be prosecuted. nonconsensual searches just because they are pregnant. but legal substances as well. Fetal Persons. These include the American Medical Association. even when their behavior may have deleterious effects on their offspring. the American Nurses Associa tion. among other prominent groups. and the Threat to Roe v. though there is ample evidence t hat exposure — even prenatal exposure — to second-hand smoke can have serious long-t erm health effects. This means that the state cannot subject women to warrantl ess. Recognizing that criminalizing maternal drug use is bad medicine and bad public policy. The rules. Roth. the other in Wyoming (Paltrow. the American A cademy of Pediatrics. Wade. on the other hand. We do not strip fathers of their constitutional rights. their fetuses.147). And in case the messa ge to pregnant women was not clear. 1042. officials in the South Carolina Department o f Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services recently distributed literature advising pregnant women that “it’s . . 150). 999: n. and the state began testing men of child-beari ng age for illegal drug use because they did not have annual physicals or had a history of substance abuse. for example. There are at least two recent incidents of state authorities arresting women for consuming alcohol during pregnancy: one in South Carolina. have been arrested or threatened with arrest for consuming not just illegal substances. Paltrow. with potentially tragic consequences for pregnant women. it admitted 80 percent fewer pregnant women than it had a year ea rlier. Given that recent studies have linked male drug use to sperm abnormalit ies that can cause birth defects.” Women and Health (2000) 30. the courts would rightfully hold such po licies unconstitutional. Po llard. No. Pregnant women enjoy the same constitutional rights as other competent adults. the other saw 54 percent fewer pregnant women during the same time period (L. the American College of Obstetricians and Gy necologists. that law en forcement working in tandem with medical providers would consider implementing s uch a practice. Pregnant women. Imagine further that officials arrest and take into custody in the name of their unborn children those men with positive toxicology reports. Albany Law Review (1999) 62. We do not. arrest fathers and remove them from their families if they smoke two packs of cigarettes a day around their children and their pregnant wives. “Pregnant Drug Users. the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. drink . the American Society on Addiction Medicine. suspicionless. or en gage in other activities that risk harming” the fetus. however. Though in May of 2000. the official res ponsible for redrafting the recalled material has indicated that he “has not decid ed whether to make reference to nicotine or alcohol abuse as potentially crimina l” in the rewritten document (American Civil Liberties Union amicus brief in Fergu . NY: Cornell University Press (2000). “Substance Abuse and Parenthood: Biological Mechanisms-Bioethical Challenge s. bodily integrity. seem to change when it comes to pre gnant women.

These and other state policies aimed at policing pregnant women assume that pre gnant women are different from other competent adults. For example. Chasnoff. Punishing pregnant women for drug use sets the state on a slippery slope.” New England Journal of Medicine (1990) 322. their drug use is far more likely than that of middle-class whi te women to be detected and reported. 16. Studies on drug use during pregnan cy consistently show that the abuse of other substances. the policy led inevitably to the identification and puni shment of drug use by pregnant. however. pregnant women included. The singling out of cocaine is not justified on medical grounds. Inadequate pr enatal care can.1 percent of African American women used drugs during pregnancy. nonconsensual drug tes ting. What’s t o stop the state from arresting women for drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes while pregnant? Where will we draw the line? In recent years. African American women. No. Moreover. rather than other substances like metha mphetamines. 13). and mental illness. a drug more prevalen t among inner-city communities of color. researchers found that 15. or intraute rine fetal death. leaving other pregnan t users free of the threat of warrantless. In a 1990 study published in the New England Journal of Me dicine. birth defects or poor fetal growth. Barrett. 172). There are many factors contributing to these discrepancies. unrul iness. a drug-testing policy that targets crack cocaine. of the 30 women arrested under the interagency drug-testing policy. H. result in unexplained preterm labor. Florida. however. 15. that in becoming pregnant . the hospital tested women who received little or no prenatal care. women somehow become wards of the state or forfeit their constitutional rights . The Constitution. all conditions that the MUSC policy also identified as grounds for testing pregnant patients. Landress. in turn. will unfa irly result in the arrests of women of color (Roberts. low-income women of color. poor women are more likely to delay seeking prenatal care until relatively late in pregnancy or to obtain no prenatal care at all. a drug used more often by white rural and suburban women. both legal and illegal. can harm fetal development as much as or more than cocaine (American Medical As sociation amicus brief in Ferguson. MUSC’s policy was a form of racial profiling.. am icus brief in Ferguson. 18). In addition. MUSC’s own records indicate that among its pregnant patients equal percentages of white and African American women consumed illegal drugs (Roberts. Although drug use crosses all racial and class lines. poor women of color have o verwhelmingly been the ones targeted and arrested for using drugs while pregnant . 177). By both des ign and implementation. These numbers are in line with national statistics.4 percent of white women and 14. Below are . protects all of us.son. therefore. Because poor women of color are far more likely to give birth at public institutions and have more contact with state agencies. 17: 1202-6). a number of the criteria used to trigger testing under the MUSC pol icy had little to do with drug use per se and had much more to do with poverty. for example. with fewer resources and less connection to the medical community than midd le-class women. separation of the placenta from the uterine wall. 29 were Afr ican American (Petitioners’ brief in Ferguson. Public Health Association et al. and M. In practice. were 10 times more likely than white women to be reported to au thorities (I. However. Yet. 29). “Prevalence of Illicit Drug o r Alcohol Use During Pregnancy and Discrepancies in Mandatory Reporting in Pinel las County. all in the name of protecting fetal health. pregnant women have been forced to undergo an array of medical procedures without their consent and have been imprisoned for alcohol use. with race and class prejudices playing a major role in all of them. suspicionless.

App.” The woman ultimately gave birth by vaginal delivery to a normal . but not in time to help the woman or her family (In re A. 329 (Ill.. and the person being searched must have a diminished expectation of privacy. derived from he r rights to privacy. The woman was ultimately spared from undergoing the procedure by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. the governmental policy must be unrelated to la w enforcement. the office of the State’s Attorney sought a court order compelli ng her to submit to the cesarean. a young pregnant woman. 1990)).C. • In Wisconsin.C. Ct. • In Illinois.. a pregnant woman was advised that. The cesa rean was nonetheless performed. without a warrant. because of an insufficient flow of oxygen to the fetus. • In California. State actions to police pregnant women for the alleged benefit of their fetuses are not only misguided as a matter of policy. 1983 )). they are unlawful.a few examples: • In Massachusetts. the fetus could be born dead or severely retarded if she did not immediately undergo a cesarean.2d 1235. the question is whether the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution pe rmits a public hospital to subject women to drug testing. 126 Cal. 1994)).2d 332. The government may dispense with the protections normally demanded under the Fou rth Amendment prior to a search — securing a warrant or having an individualized s uspicion of criminal conduct — only if the search falls within a “special needs” excep tion. . bodily integrity. In Ferguson. Ct. 1981)). officials arrested a pregnant woman because of alcohol use and charg ed her with felony child abuse. • In Wyoming.. 1192. DC. She spent time in jail before a judge dismissed the charge (Roth. 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. The answer is no.E. which vacated t he lower court’s order because it had not adequately considered the woman’s constitu tional right to privacy (See Taft v. App. concerned about a pregnant woman’s ment al state but lacking sufficient evidence to have her committed for psychiatric t reatment. 1195). 1241 (D. and without the woman’s consent. 3d 23. the appellate co urt held that a woman’s “right to refuse invasive medical treatment. 573 A.E. Taft. 446 N. healthy — though somewhat underweight — baby boy (In re Baby Doe. 2d 395. instead obtained a juvenile court order declaring her fetus a dependen t child of the state and detaining the woman pending birth. a deputy district attorney. App. without individualized suspicion. Rejecting the state’s argument. and religious liberty. 150). the results of which a re reported to the police. is not diminished during pregnancy. To satisfy that exception. and t he woman died two days later. An appellate court ultimately reversed the order t hat authorized the involuntary surgery. severely ill with cancer. 30-31 (Cal. 27. the baby died within a few hours of birth. a lower court ordered a pregnant woman’s cervix sewn up against her will to prevent a possible miscarriage. 632 N. et al. • In Washington. 396. An appellate court u ltimately held that the district attorney had impermissibly manipulated the juve nile laws to detain the pregnant woman and released her when she was approximate ly seven months pregnant (In re Steven S. 397 (Mass. When the woman opposed the surgery on r eligious grounds. several tim es 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.

Though the question before the U. or threatened with these consequences. . The Constitution does not permit such an assault on women’s privacy and equality. law permits the state to step in to ensure that women “behave” themselves during pregnancy. child abuse registry By DAVID A. law enforcement officials were intimately involved in cre ating and implementing MUSC’s policy: women who tested positive for cocaine were a rrested and prosecuted. W hile both men and women engage in conduct that may be harmful to a fetus. LIEB ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER JEFFERSON CITY.com/national/1110AP_Child_Abuse_Registry. tied into stirrups for a pelvic exam. that target women of color may violate constitutional and statutory prohibitio ns against race discrimination. Callahan suspended the effect of his judgment pending an appeal. The Department of Social Services said it was likely to appeal the case to the M issouri Supreme Court. all in the purported interest of the fetus.nwsource. Supreme Court in Ferguson concerns the Fourt h Amendment. founder Mildred Jamison and nurse Betty Dotson were listed on the child abuse registry based on probable cause of neglect. PT Court rejects Mo. policies. By singl ing out women in this manner. however.ht Thursday. Callahan’s ruling stemmed from a 2002 instance of alleged sexual abuse at the Fait h House child care facility in St. Moreover. or involuntarily hospitalized during deliv ery — violate the guarantee of liberty of the Due Process Clause of the Federal Co nstitution. 2005 • Last updated 6:23 p. Although they were not accused of abus e themselves. SECTION 16 CENTRAL REGISTRY RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER http://seattlepi. Mo. only w omen — by virtue of their pregnancies — are targeted for punitive measures. The registry is kept secret from the general public. the restraints imposed on pregnant women in this and other contexts . Louis.m. Nothing in U. raise additional legal concerns.S. like MUSC’s .S. in case after cas e. the state discriminates against them. Finally. but is used by child care p roviders and others to screen current and potential employees. By the same token. Circuit Judge Richard Callahan concluded that people’s reputations and professiona l careers were damaged when their names were placed in the child abuse registry before a due-process hearing. — A judge declared Missouri’s child abuse registry unconstitutio nal Thursday. efforts by the state to protect the fet us by confining women — whether to a hospital or jail — or by compelling medical tre atment — whether the woman is strapped to a gurney for a forced cesarean section.In this case. potentially violating both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Co nstitution and various civil rights laws. November 3. ruling that suspected offenders deserved a court-like hearing befo re being listed. the notion that women have a diminished expectation of privacy when t hey are pregnant is at odds with our strong constitutional tradition of respecti ng pregnant women’s privacy rights.

The ruling upholds a 2004 decision of the Georgia Supreme Court but still makes a significant change in the law nationwide. Qu arrels between husbands and wives. because most other lower federal an d state courts had previously said that police could search with the consent of one of two adults living together. dissenters said it could undermine police efforts against domestic violence. SECTION 17 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.” Souter wrote. or boyfriends and girlfriends. Roberts Jr. Now. Their names go on. President. th e victims of which are often women. Callahan said it violated constitutional due-process rights to list people on th e registry prior to holding a hearing before a neutral decision-maker in which w itnesses are under oath. “[T]here is no common understanding that one co-tenant generally has a right or au thority to prevail over the express wishes of another. almost half of the 39.” Dotson could not be reached for comment. and they don’t know about the appeals process or any of that. because of “widely shared social expectations” that adults living toge ther each have veto power over who can come into their shared living space. Souter’s majority opinion said that the consent of one partner i s not enough.The decision was upheld ect Review Board. in the District. the police and DCF can’t enter based on one consenting party but must yield to the non-consenting party.. Decisions listing occurred before by the Department of Social Services’ Child Abuse and Negl holds only informal hearings. March 23. Justice David H. not ones following judicia by the review panel can be appealed to a judge. writing his first dissent since joining the court in October. The 5 to 3 decision sparked a sharp exchange among the justices. Chief Justice John G.” especially in domestic disput . whether the issue is the color of the curtains or invitations to outsiders. officers must first ask a judicial officer for a warrant in such cases. The majority p ortrayed the decision as striking a blow for privacy rights and gender equality. Jamison said Callahan’s ruling was “wonderful.000 violent crime calls officers answered in 2000 involved alleged domestic violence. keep police bu sy around the country. th erefore. unconstitutional. 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. because many people don’t know what the due process is. Thomas Dutkiewicz. which l procedures. said the ruling’s “cost” would be “great. All occupan ts must give consent. 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. but the that happened. A01 The Supreme Court narrowed police search powers yesterday. Connecticut DCF Watch High Court Trims Police Power to Search Homes By Charles Lane Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday. If one parent or party present denies entry. 2006. That makes a warrantless search based on only one partner’s consent “unreasonable” and.

An officer asked Scott Randolph for permission to sear ch the house. Roberts noted. “how often can police be ex pected to encounter the situation in which a man urges them to enter the home wh ile a woman simultaneously demands they stay out?” © 2006 The Washington Post Company SECTION 18 HAIR FOLLICLE DRUG TESTING RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL .” he noted. 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. only a hus band’s consent or objection would have been taken into account. “The majority’s rule apparently forbids police from entering to assist with a domest ic dispute if the abuser whose behavior prompted the request for police assistan ce objects.” saying that the police would still have legal authority to enter homes where one partner was truly in danger. Anthony M. she told them where the y could find his cocaine. Those rulings were unchanged by y esterday’s decision. 04-1607. But Souter called that argument a “red herring.” Souter’s opinion was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens. Breyer backed Souter with a separate opinion noting that his decisive fifth vot e was cast on the understanding that Souter’s analysis applies to cases such as th is one. Scott Randolph was arrested and indicted on charges o f cocaine possession. 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 inte rpreted in light of the Framers’ original intent.’ ” arguing that the court’s ruling would probably not benefit women. Georgia’s Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the evidence should be suppressed b ecause it was gathered without a warrant. In a brief concurring opinion.” he wrote. . “No question has been raised. but Janet Randolph said yes — and led them to a straw co vered in cocaine crystals. that places primary reliance on a search for original understand ing would recognize the relevance of changes in our society. or reasonably could be.e situations. he wrote. “[T]his case has no bearing on the capacity of the police to protect domestic vict ims. The main battle between Souter and Roberts was accompanied by a skirmish betwee n Stevens and Scalia. when the case was argued. “Given the usual patterns of domestic violence. Kennedy.” Souter wrote. a co-tenant has surrendered a good deal of the privacy that the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment was designed to prote ct. did not vote because he was not yet on the court in November. in which the police were searching fo r evidence of a crime. so long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists.” Scalia fired back at “Justice Stevens’ ‘attempted critique’ of originalism. “[T]oday’s decision will not adversely affect ordinary law enforcement practices. rather than intervening in a violent dispute. “this case illustrates why even the most dedicated adherent to an approach . about the authority of the police to enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence. Rut h Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Georgia v. Thus. The case arose out of a 2001 quarrel over child custody at the home of Janet an d Scott Randolph in Americus. Randolph . Just by agreeing to live with someone else.” Souter said Roberts was guilty of declaring that “the centuries of special protect ion for the privacy of the home are over. he wrote. But at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted. When officers arrived. Justice Samuel A. Ga. He refused. No. . Breyer. Roberts wrote that the ruling made no sense. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented. A lito Jr. given that the court had previousl y said it is constitutional for police to enter a house with the permission of o ne partner when the other is asleep or absent.” Bre yer wrote.

fundamental liberty interest involved in retaining custody of one’s c hild and the integrity of one’s family is of the greatest importance. 4th 1181. Real Party in Interest. Troxel v. the least intrusive method had to be used. freq uent. D045854 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA. the nature and immediacy of the gover nment concern at issue. 3d 757. LEXIS 681. the Superior Court of San Diego County (California). along with an ind ividual’s legitimate expectation of privacy.5(a) required any court-ordered drug testin g to conform to federal drug testing procedures and standards. and the efficacy of drug testing in meeting that concern .5(a) did not show an intent by the legislature to allow any type of available testing. 1990) A state employee who withholds a child from her family may infringe on the famil y’s liberty of familial association. OVERVIEW: At issue was whether Cal. or continual illegal use of controlled substances. Mercer County (7th Cir. Superior Court of San Diego County. 2000) The private. Code § 3041. the only reasonable interpretation of the clause was that if and when ad ditional tests were permitted. 1992) Children have standing to sue for their removal after they reach the age of majo rity. the court held that § 3041.5(a) permitted courts in cus tody and visitation proceedings to order drug testing by means of a hair follicl e test of a parent whom the trial court had determined engaged in habitual. 2005 Cal. PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner mother sought a writ of prohibition. 2005.S. 530 U.DEBORAH M. 2005 Daily Journal DAR 4927 April 29. In response. of Social Services for Baltimore (4th Cir. DIVISION ONE 128 Cal. Children have a constitutional right to live with their parents without go vernment interference. San Jose (9th Cir. Judge. Weller v. App. Granville. as wel l as an order for drug testing. Petitioner. th at compelled her to submit to a hair follicle drug test. Service 3617. and at present th ose federal standards only allowed for urine tests. De pt. Respondent. SECTION 19 SUMMARY OF FAMILY RIGHTS (FAMILY ASSOCIATION) The state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when a fit parent is avai lable.5(a) an d its statutory history demonstrated that only urine tests were allowed because the language “least intrusive method of testing” in § 3041. Alan Clements. Daily Op. To pass constitution al muster. Social workers can not deliberately remove ch ildren from their parents and place them with foster caregivers when the officia . Rptr. The language of § 3041. challenging an order of respondent. ED24070. App. Fam. FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. v. In granting a writ of p rohibition. No. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY... directing the trial court to v acate its order compelling a hair follicle drug test. Thus. Ward v. the intrusiveness of the testing had to be weighed. Filed PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Proceedings in prohibition after superior court order comp elling hair follicle drug test. The mother had sought t o have her child support amended. 27 Cal. D ARYL W. 2005 Cal . A child has a constitutionally protected interest in the companionship and socie ty of his or her parent. real party in interest father had filed an order to show cause seeking a change in custody and visitation. OUTCOME: The court issued a writ of prohibition. 57 (2000). Brokaw v.

ls reasonably should have known such an action would cause harm to the child’s men
tal 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. Was
hington 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-deprivatio
n 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 importa
nce 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)
SECTION 20
WARRANTLESS ENTRY
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 circu
mstance 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 sei
zure in a suspected child abuse case absent exigent circumstances. Defendants mu
st have reason to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy and that th
e intrusion is reasonable necessary to alleviate the threat. Searches and seizur
es in investigation of a child neglect or child abuse case at a home are governe
d by the same principles as other searches and seizures at a home. Good v. Dauph
in County Social Services (3rd Cir. 1989)
The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures exten
ds 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 r
equirements. United States v. Becker, 929 F.2d 9th Cir.1991)
Making false statements to obtain a warrant, when the false statements were nece
ssary to the finding of probable cause on which the warrant was based, violates
the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. The Warrant Clause contemplates that t
he 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 hel
d liable personally for his actions under § 1983. This warrant application is mate
rially false or made in reckless disregard for the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Clau
se. 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 tha
t the search will be carefully tailored to its justifications. Consequently, it
will not take on the character of the wide-ranging exploratory searches the Fram
ers of the Constitution intended to prohibit. There is a requirement that the po
lice identify themselves to the subject of a search, absent exigent circumstance
s. Aponte Matos v. Toledo Davilla (1st Cir. 1998)

SECTION 21
DUE PROCESS
Child’s four-month separation from his parents could be challenged under substanti
ve due process. Sham procedures don’t constitute true procedural due process. Brok
aw 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 S
ervices (10th Cir. 1992)
When the state places a child into state-regulated foster care, the state has du
ties and the failure to perform such duties may create liability under § 1983. Lia
bility may attach when the state has taken custody of a child, regardless of whe
ther the child came to stay with a family on his own which was not an officially
approved foster family. Nicini v. Morra (3rd Cir. 2000)
A social worker who received a telephone accusation of abuse and threatened to r
emove 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 a
n 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 becaus
e the intentional use of fraudulent evidence into the procedures used by the sta
te denied them the fight to fundamentally fair procedures before having their ch
ild removed, a right included in Procedural Due Process. Morris v. Dearborne (5t
h Cir. 1999)
When the state deprives parents and children of their right to familial integrit
y, 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. Mor
gan, (7th Cir. 1990)
When the state places a child in a foster home it has an obligation to provide a
dequate 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 no
t constitute notice and an opportunity to be heard. Procurement of an order to s
eize a child through distortion, misrepresentation and/or omission is a violatio
n of the Forth Amendment. Parents may assert their children’s Fourth Amendment cla
im on behalf of their children as well as asserting their own Fourteenth Amendme
nt 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. M
ississippi Dept. of Public Welfare, (5th Cir. 1991)

Mother had a clearly established right to an adequate, prompt post-deprivation h
earing. A 17-day period prior to the hearing was not prompt hearing. Whisman V.
Rinehart, (8th Cir. 1997)
SECTION 22
SEIZURES (CHILD REMOVALS)
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 child
ren for medical exams, or an overriding order from the court after parents have
been heard. Wallis v. Spencer, (9th Cir 1999)
Child removals are “seizures” under the Fourth Amendment. Seizure is unconstitutiona
l without court order or exigent circumstances. Court order obtained based on kn
owingly false information violates Fourth Amendment. Brokaw v. Mercer County, (7
th Cir. 2000)
Defendant should’ve investigated further prior to ordering seizure of children bas
ed 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 re
ason to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy and that the intrusio
n is reasonably necessary to alleviate the threat. Searches and seizures in inve
stigation of a child neglect or child abuse case at a home are governed by the s
ame 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 o
f probable cause to believe the child was in imminent danger of harm. Where poli
ce were not informed of any abuse of the child prior to arriving at caretaker’s ho
me and found no evidence of abuse while there, seizure of the child was not obje
ctively 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 whic
h a reasonable person would feel that he is not free to leave, and also either a
ctually yields to a show of authority from police or social workers or is physic
ally touched by police. Persons may not be “seized” without a court order or being p
laced 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 o
r to search a place where the person may happen to be. Yabarra v. Illinois, 44 U
.S. 85 (1979)
An officer who obtains a warrant through material false statements which result
in an unconstitutional seizure may be held liable personally for his actions und
er § 1983. Aponte Matos v. Toledo Davilla, 1st Cir. 1998)
SECTION 23
IMMUNITY
Social workers (and other government employees) may be sued for deprivation of c
ivil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if they are named in their ‘official and individu

Spencer. State law providing immunity from suit for child abuse investigators has no app lication to suits under § 1983. McCord v. Grossman v. Young v. only qualified immunity. City of Portland. 1986) Defendants were not entitled to prosecutorial immunity where complaint was based on failure to investigate. and an inordinate delay in fi ling court proceedings. S. 1991) State law cannot provide immunity from suit for Federal civil rights violations. (5th Cir. (10 Cir. Fitzgerald. 1999) If the law was clearly established at the time the action occurred. Maggio. 800. Dept. an of ficer who enforces that statute is not entitled to qualified immunity. Where a statute authorizes official con duct which is patently violation of fundamental constitutional principles. 457 U. c riminal complaints and applications. Social workers in vestigating claims of child abuse are entitled only to qualified immunity. Tunnel. Wallis v. Hafer v. or the official violated clearly e stablished statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. detaining minor child. Melo. Social workers were not entitled to absolute immunity where department policy wa s for social workers to report findings of neglect or abuse to other authorities for further investigation or initiation of court proceedings. Use of information known to be false is not reasonable.al capacity’. No qualified immunity is available for in corporating allegations into the report or application where official had no rea sonable basis to assume the allegations were true at the time the document was p repared. Assis ting in the use of information known to be false to further an investigation is not subject to absolute immunity. Briggs. of Social Services. Snell v. 1990) Police officer is not entitled to absolute immunity. (9th Cir. (9th Cir.Ct. Malley v. (S. 818 (1982) Immunity is defeated if the official took the complained of action with maliciou s intention to cause a deprivation of rights. (10th Cir. and acts of deliberate falsity or reckless disregard of the truth a re not entitled to qualified immunity. because such actions did not aid in the presentation of . (5th Cir. Officer’s act s were investigative and involved more that merely carrying out a judicial order . Harlow v. Arapahoe Cty. 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 offi cer spoke with the social worker prior to social worker’s conversation with the ma gistrate and there was evidence that described the collaborative worker of the t wo defendants in creating a “plan of action” to deal with the situation.Ct. Malik v.S. (1994) Social workers were not entitled to absolute immunity for pleadings filed to obt ain a pick-up order for temporary custody prior to formal petition being filed. 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 h er charge against the plaintiff. a police off icer is not entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity based on good f aith since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his or her conduct. Biggers. to claim that he caused plaintiff to be unlawfully arrested by presenting judge wi th an affidavit that failed to establish probable cause. 1999) Individuals aren’t immune for the results of their official conduct simply because they were enforcing policies or orders. Social workers are not entitled to qualified i mmunity on claims they deceived judicial officers in obtaining a custody order o r deliberately or recklessly incorporated known falsehoods into their reports.

. 431 US 678. Dauphin County Social Services. K. Society o f Sisters. 1991) SECTION 24 DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT UPHOLDING PARENTAL RIGHTS AS “FUNDAMENTAL” Paris Adult Theater v.’ [emphasis supplied] The Court continued by explaining that these rights are not absolute and. Rice. Nebraska . the key word. 321 US 158 (1944). 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. it is clear that amon g the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government inter ference are personal decisions relating to marriage . however. . Pierce v. the Court includes the right of parents to rear children among ri ghts “deemed fundamental.” Our prior decisions recognizing a right to privacy guaran teed by the 14th Amendment included only personal rights that can be deemed fund amental or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty . . motherhood.a case to the juvenile court. Compelling is. Prince v. family relationships. the Court has recognized that one aspect of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendm ent is a “right of personal privacy or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of pr ivacy . where decisions as fundamental as whether to bear or beget a child is involved. 65 (1973) In this case. 262 US 390 (192 3). regulations imposing a burden on it may be justifi ed only by a compelling state interest. Meyer v. the family. procreation. in this Court’s decisions int imates that there is any fundamental privacy right implicit in the concept of or dered liberty to watch obscene movies and places of public accommodation. . Population Services International. and child rearing and education. 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 info rmation he had overheard. cf . . may at some point become sufficiently compelling to sust ain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision . . . 432 US 464. 1997) Case worker who intentionally or recklessly withheld potentially exculpatory inf ormation from an adjudicated delinquent or from the court itself was not entitle d to qualified immunity. . (3rd Cir 1989) Social workers were not entitled to absolute immunity where no court order comma nded them to place plaintiff with particular foster caregivers. Slaton. nothing. and child rearing . [empha sis supplied] Carey v. . Society of Sisters. . (1st Cir. Morgan. . Meyer v. Hurlman v. While the outer limits of this aspect of privacy have not been marked by the Court. This right of personal privacy includes the interest and independenc e in making certain kinds of important decisions . (2nd Cir. 268 US 510 (1925). Germany v. and must be narrowly drawn to express on ly those interests. . . 413 US 49. [emphasis supplied] Maher v. This privacy right e ncompasses and protects the personal intimacies of the home. 684-686 (1977) Once again. (7th Cir. Whisman v. . Pie rce v. Good v. 1991) Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity for conducting warrantless se arch of home during a child abuse investigation where exigent circumstances were not present. . . Vance. certai n state interests . . (8th Cir. Massachusetts. of course. re quiring an application of the “compelling interest test.H through Murp hy v. Roe. Nebraska. 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 interf erence with a protected activity and state encouragement of an alternative activ .” Although the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. . marriag e. Rinehart.

In Pierce v. . coupled with the high duty.R. on the contrary . But neither case denied to a state the policy choice of e ncouraging the preferred course of action … Pierce casts no shadow over a state’s po wer to favor public education by funding it — a policy choice pursued in some Stat es for more than a century … Indeed in Norwood v.” noting that “It is one thing to say that a state may not prohibit the maintenance of priv ate 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 re quired to show a compelling interest for its policy choice to favor a normal chi ldbirth anymore than a state must so justify its election to fund public. the incidence of child neglect and abuse cases attests to this. The Supreme Court reversed this decision upholding the legal pres umption that parents act in their children’s best interest. 1 W. 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 . the Court has clearly indicated that private schools do not have a fu ndamental right to state aid. experience. 510.. (1973 ). but it does not make the right to receive public funds a fundamental right. The Court ruled: Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of th e family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. That some parents “may at times be acting against the interests of their children” … creates a basis for caution. In Meyer v. our constitutional system long ago rejec ted any notion that a child is “the mere creature of the State” and. historically it has been recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their ch ildren. . The law’s concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity. Blackstone.ity 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. The lower Court had ruled that Georgia’s statutory scheme of a llowing children to be subject to treatment in the state’s mental health facilitie s violated the Constitution because it did not adequately protect children’s due p rocess rights. 462. we explicitly rejected the argument that Pierce established a “right of private or parochial schools to share with the public schools in state largesse. . asserted that parents generally “have the right. . This case involves parent’s rights to make medical decisions regarding their chil dren’s mental health. As with so many other legal presumptions. the Co urt relied on Meyer . Kent. The Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act simply reaffirms the right of parents to choose private ed ucation as fundamental. 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 … Both cases invalidated substantial restrictions of constitutionally protected li berty interests: in Meyer. Parham v. nor must a state satisfy the compelling interest t est if it chooses not to give private schools state aid. J. Society of Sisters . 442 US 584. . Commentaries 447. does not in any way promote or strength en the concept of educational vouchers. and capacity for judgment required for making lif e’s difficult decisions. Soci ety of Sisters. therefore. 535 (1925) … [other citations omitted] . in Pierce. 413 US 455. 268 U. the parent’s right to have his child taught a particula r foreign language.” Pierce v. but it is hardly a reas on 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 . . . to recognize and prepare [their children] for additional obligations.S. More important. Harrison. [emphasis supplied] Although the Maher decision unquestionably recognizes parents’ rights as fundament al rights. Our cases have consistently followed that course. 2 J. Nebraska. the parent’s right to choose private rather than pu blic school education. but no t private education. Commentaries on American L aw 190. The PRRA. 602-606 (1979). . . experience and reality may reb ut what the law accepts as a starting point. reasoning that the 14th Amendment’s concept of liberty e xcludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing th em to accept instruction from public teachers only. .

308 (1976). The same characterizations can be made for a tonsillectom y. the parental rights guaranteed under Pierce and Meyer. The Court continues by expla ining the balancing that must take place: Nonetheless. require us to hold that parent’s decision to have a child admitted to a ment al hospital must be subjected to an exacting constitutional scrutiny. Supreme Court. [emphasis supplied ] Therefore. made it clear that parents’ rights as outl . sweeps too broadly. 428 US 52 (1976). adversary. pre-admission hearing. and Pierce v . would have been different if the children there had announced or preference to go to a public. including a formal. if viewed in the context of a liberty interest of the child and the likelihood of parental a buse. Kramer. The fac t 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 wha t is best for the child (See generally Goldstein. however.S. Appellees urge d that these precedents limiting the traditional rights of parents. or other medical procedure. including their need for medical care. Medical Case for the Child at Risk: on State Supervention of Parental Autonomy. 461 (19 83) This case includes. [emphasis supplied] Parental rights are clearly upheld in this decision recognizing the rights of p arents to make health decisions for their children. 455 US 745. rather that a church school. 462 US 416. The U . Society of Sisters. appendectomy. we have recognized that a state is not without constitutional cont rol over parental discretion in dealing with children when their physical or men tal health is jeopardized (See Wisconsin v. Danforth. 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 deci sions. Allocation of Child Medical Care Decision — Making Authority: A Suggest ed Interest Analyses. even in adolescence. 86 Yale LJ 645. Yoder. in reaching their decision. 753 (1982) This case involved the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court affirmi ng the application of the preponderance of the evidence standard as proper and c onstitutional in ruling that the parent’s rights are permanently terminated. Bennett. The Court. in a long list of protected liberties and fundamental right s. supra. Neither state officials nor f ederal Courts are equipped to review such parental decisions. Mor eover. Central among these protected libertie s is an individual’s freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life … Roe … Griswold … Pierce v. 62 Va LR ev 285. The Court indicated a compelling interest test must be applied. Nebraska. Akron Center for Reproductive Health Inc. Prince v. includin g their need for medical care or treatment. A parent’s authority to decide what is best for the child in the areas of medical treatment cannot be diminished sim ply because a child disagrees. Most children. Nebraska … But restrictive state regulation of the right to choose abortion as with other fundamental righ ts subject to searching judicial examination. 664-668 (1977) . City of Akron v. holding that due p rocess as required under the 14th Amendment in this case required proof by clear and convincing evidence rather than merely a preponderance of the evidence. Parents can and must make those judg ments … we cannot assume that the result in Meyer v. [emphasis supplied] Santosky v. simply are not able to make sound judgments concerning many decisions.. however. Society of Sisters … Meyer v.power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abu se and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition. Massachusetts). Appellees’ argument. supra. Plan ned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. vacated the lower Court decision. Simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child. A parent’s right must be protected and not simply t ransferred to some state agency. the Court recently declared unconstitutional a state statute that granted parents an absolute veto over a minor child’s decisions to have an abortion. or because it involves risks does not autom atically transfer power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state. must be supported by a compelling state interest.

110 (1989) In a paternity suit. Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Massachusetts … The Court declared it a cardinal principle “that the custody. In those cases … the Court has emphasized the paramount interest in the wel fare of children and has noted that the rights of the parents are a counterpart of the responsibilities they have assumed. The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care. Robertson. Nebraska.ined in Pierce and Meyer are fundamental and specially protected under the Fourt eenth Amendment. 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. and m anagement of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been mo del parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the state … When the state moves to destroy weakened familial bonds. Kramer … [emphasis s upplied] It is clear by the above case that parental rights are to be treated as fundame ntal and cannot be taken away without meeting the constitutional requirement of due process. The Supreme Court stated: In som e cases. Society of Sisters … [emphasis supplied] Michael H. the U. 491 U. the D ue Process Clause affords only those protections “so rooted in the traditions and . . Rotary Club of Duarte. The Court began by quoting another Supreme Court case: In Lassiter [Lassiter v. 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”. this Court has held that the federal constitution supersedes s tate law and provides even greater protection for certain formal family relation ships. The absence of dispute reflected this Court’s histor ical recognition that freedom of personal choice in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the 14th Amendment … Pierce v. a Californian civil rights statute was held not to violate the Fi rst Amendment by requiring an all male non-profit club to admit women to members hip. [emphasis supplied] Lehr v. 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. Pierce v. but also that it be an interest traditionally protected by our society. Nebraska … and Pierce v. Pierce v. however. v. is hard to objectify). 257-258 (1983) In this case. The Court concluded that parents’ rights in child rearing and education are i ncluded as fundamental elements of liberty protected by the Bill of Rights. See.S. Society o f Sisters … Meyer v. personal. 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. 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 procedure s meeting the requisites of the Due Process Clause” Santosky v.S. it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures. 463 US 248. 37 (1981)]. custody. in isolation.” In these ca ses. The Court has recognized that the freedom to enter into and carry on certain in timate or private relationships is a fundamental element of liberty protected by the Bill of Rights … the intimate relationships to which we have accorded Constit utional protection include marriage … the begetting and bearing of children. . Thus. Nebraska … In an attempt to limit and guide interpretation of the Clause. child rearing and education. Gerald. Society of S isters … Meyer v. 452 US 18. we have insisted not merely that the interest denominated as a “liberty” be “f undamental” (a concept that. As we have put it. 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. the U. 481 US 537 (1987) In this case. the liberty of parents to contr ol the education of their children that was vindicated in Meyer v.S. The natural father was challenging an adoption.g. or financial relationship with the child. e. Department of Social Services.

the Co urt went out of its way to say that the parents’ rights to control the education o f their children is still a fundamental right.” The 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 dru gs.S. Yoder: Yoder said that “The Court’s holding in Pierce stands as a charter for the rights o f parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children. Minnesota. 417 (1990) In Hodgson the Court found that parental rights not only are protected under th e First and Fourteenth Amendments as fundamental and more important than propert y rights. under this precedent. under this precedent. 105 (1934). 872 (1990) One of the more recent decisions which upholds the right of parents is Employme nt Division of Oregon v. they were denied because they were discharged for “misconduct. [emphasis supplied] The Court explicitly included the par ental rights under Pierce and Meyer as “fundamental” and interests “traditionally prot ected by our society. acknowledged in Pierce v.20 [emphasis supplied] Instead of merely showing that a regulation conflicting with parents’ rights is re asonable. 494 U. Of course. which involved two Indians who were fired from a private drug rehabilitation organization because they ingested “peyote. Massachusetts. therefore.205 (1972) invalidating compulsory-attendance laws as applied t o Amish parents who refused on religious grounds to send their children to schoo l.S.” a hallucin ogenic drug as part of their religious beliefs. 510 (1925). And when the int erests 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 re quired to sustain the validity of the State’s requirement under the First Amendmen t. the U. So what does the case have to do with parental rights? After the Court ruled against the Indians. the state must. When they sought unemployment co mpensation. 268 U.” The family has a privacy interest in the upbringing and education of children an d the intimacies of the marital relationship which is protected by the Constitut ion against undue state interference.” which requires the state to prove its regulation to be the least r estrictive means.S. but that they are “deemed essential. Smith.S. 497 U. to direct the education of their children. Supreme Court reversed the case and found t hat the First Amendment did not protect drug use. Society of Sisters. 7 406 US 205 … The st atist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American t radition. not to the Free Exercise Clause alone: [B]ut the Free Exercise Clause in conjunction with other constitutional protect ions such as … the right of parents. Yoder. The Court declared that the “compel ling interest test” is still applicable. reach the higher standard of the “compelling interest test. The Court in Smith quoted its previous case of Wisconsin v. The Court in Smith quoted its pre vious case of Wisconsin v.” Employment Division of Oregon v. 406 U.” 406 U.” In other words. Smith. parents’ rights to control the educ ation of their children is considered a “constitutionally protected right” which req uires the application of the compelling interest test.conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental” Snyder v. it then analyzed the application of the Free Exercise Clause generally. See Wisconsin v Yoder. 291 US 97. Hodgson v.19 [emphasis supplied] In other words.. parents’ rights to control the education of their children is considered a “constitutionally protected right” which requires th e application of the compelling interest test. Yoder: Yoder said that “The Court’s holding in Pierce stands as a charter for the rights o f parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children.S. at 233. The Court wrongly decided to throw out the F ree Exercise Clause as a defense to any “neutral” law that might violate an individu al’s religious convictions. as expected.S. see Wisconsin v . And when the int erests 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 re . In the process of destroying religious freedom.

Meyer v Nebraska. Yoder. at 233. Society of Sisters … We hav e recognized that parents have an important “guiding role” to play in the upbringing of their children. Supreme Court ruled that the Washin gton statute “unconstitutionally interferes with the fundamental right of parents to rear their children. 450 US 398. … ‘bas ic civil rights of man. See Am Jur 2d.S. J.” Wash. 321 US 158. parents and guardians possess an d exercise those rights and authorities in the child’s best interest: Traditionally at common law. and ‘[r]ights f ar more precious … than property rights.” [emphasis supplied] The Court leaves no room for doubt as to the importance and protection of the r ights of parents. the right to come and go at will. and still today. the Supreme Court recognized the parents’ right to know about their child seeking an abortion.” Prince v Mass achusetts … A natural parent who has demonstrated sufficient commitment to his or her childr en is thereafter entitled to raise the children free from undue state interferen ce. at 603. The case involved a Washington State statute which provided that a “court may order visitation rights for any person when visitation may serve the b est interests of the child. 443 US 633-639 … which presumptively includes cou nseling them on important decisions.. Bellotti II. 316 US 535.e. 132 L. 115 S. 2386 (1995) In Vernonia the Court strengthened parental rights by approaching the issue fro m a different point of view. and nurture of the child reside first in the pa rents. reach the higher standard of the “compelling interest test. H. nor hinder. and in lack thereof. 57 (2000) In this case. Matheson.’ Skinner v Oklahoma. Ginsberg v. 345 US 528.’ May v Anderson.20 [emphasis supplied] Instead of merely showing that a regulation conflicting with parents’ rights is re asonable. Illinois.2d 564. Pierce v.” which requires the state to prove its regulation to be the least r estrictive means.160(3). Troxel v. [other citations omitted]. constitutional interp retation 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.S. Parent and Child § 10 (1987). Nebraska) … “It is cardinal with us that the custody. 405 US 645 (1972) [other cites omitted]: “The court has frequently emphasized the importance of the family. even as to their physical freedom. New York. We have long held that there exists a “private realm of family life which the state cannot enter. Granville. 533 (1953) … The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.S.Ed.’ Meyer v Nebraska. The U.Ct. i. Stanley v. therefore. As Justice White explained in his opinion of the Court in Stanley v Illinois . care. 390 US 629 (1968) … We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between the parent and the child is Constitutionally prot ected (Wisconsin v. the state must. (1944)]. Code § 26. Rev. Meyer v. This Court clearly upholds the parent’s right to know in the area of minor childr en making medical decisions. Acton.. The Court stated: In addition. the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion on pare ntal liberty. Parham.L. unemancipated minors lack some of the most fundamental rights of self-determination—including even the right of lib erty in its narrow sense.” 406 U. 541 (1942). 442 US.quired to sustain the validity of the State’s requirement under the First Amendmen t. They are subje ct.” [Quoting Prince v.R. whether or not there has been any change of circumst ances. The rights to c onceive and to raise one’s children have been deemed ‘essential. They reasoned that children do not have many of the rights accorded citizens. 166. Massachusetts.” The Court went on to examine its treatment of parental ri . supra.10.. Vernonia School District 47J v. 410 (1991) In this case. to the control of their parents or guardi ans. 530 U. See also Parham v. v. whose primary function and freedom includes preparation for obligations t he state can neither supply.

Whether a statement is deemed reliable d epends on which factors a judge considers and how much weight he accords each of them. the principal evil at which the Clause was directed was the civil-law mode of criminal procedure. Pp. Pp. the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is confrontation. First. i. the unpardonable vice of the Roberts test is its demonstrated ca pacity to admit core testimonial statements that the Confrontation Clause plainl y meant to exclude. 2d 15. Held: The State’s use of Sylvia’s statement violated the Confrontation Clause becau se. (e) Roberts’ framework is unpredictable. untested by the adversary process. supra. Crawford v. English authorit ies and early state cases indicate that this was the common law at the time of t he founding. 205. See. 448 U. thus replacing the constitutionally prescribed me thod of assessing reliability with a wholly foreign one. 92 S. Mattox. we have recognized the fundame ntal right of parents to make decisions concerning the care. dee ming the statement reliable because it was nearly identical to. In essence. Pp. 02-9410. Roberts allows a ju ry to hear evidence.” Under Ohio v.” Amdt. the same cannot be said of the rationales of this Court’s more recen t decisions. Pp. 243. However. Petitioner argued t hat admitting the evidence would violate his Sixth Amendment right to be “confront ed with the witnesses against him. 156 U. Se cond. See Roberts. Sylvia did n ot testify at trial because of Washington’s marital privilege.S. in that both were ambiguous as t o whether the victim had drawn a weapon before petitioner assaulted him. particularly the use of ex parte examinations as ev idence against the accused. Pp. petitioner’s own statement to the police.. 5-21.. 2003 Decided March 8. (a) The Confrontation Clause’s text does not alone resolve this case. United States. so this Cou rt turns to the Clause’s historical background. Argued November 10. (d) The Confrontation Clause commands that reliability be assessed in a particu lar manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination. e. Yoder. 24-25. 2004 certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington Petitioner was tried for assault and attempted murder. The Clause’s primary object is testimonial hearsay. The State Supreme Court upheld the conviction. Ct. 406 U. that righ t does not bar admission of an unavailable witness’s statement against a criminal defendant if the statement bears “adequate ‘indicia of reliability. 1526 (1972) (“The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and this case clearly upholds par ental rights. The State sought to intr oduce a recorded statement that petitioner’s wife Sylvia had made during police in terrogation. custody. The Roberts test departs from historical principles because it admits statements consisting of ex parte testimony upon a mere reliability finding.g. where testimonial statements are at issue. at 66. as evidence that the stabbing was not in self-defense. And the “right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him. 25-27. is most naturally read as a reference to the common-law right of confrontatio n. and contro l of their children…Wisconsin v. S. interlocke d with. 6. (b) This Court’s decisions have generally remained faithful to the Confrontation Clause’s original meaning. S.’ ” a test met when t he evidence either falls within a “firmly rooted hearsay exception” or bears “particul arized guarantees of trustworthiness..” Id.e. 232.ghts in previous cases: In subsequent cases also. 27-30. an d interrogations by law enforcement officers fall squarely within that class. 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 t he defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. admitting only those exceptions established at the time of the founding. supra. The trial court admitted the st atement on the latter ground. 21-23. 5-33. (c) However. at 66. 237. See Mattox v. based on a mere judicial determination of reliability. That history supports two principl es. Ed. this decision means that the government may not infrin ge 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. 56. Washington No. . Pp. 32 L. Roberts.

Parents have a fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal bond with their children. (1980). 102 S Ct 1388. no less than the state courts. (1985). Santosky v. C. joined. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in t he parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protec tions for individual liberty interests at stake. 30-32. persons fa ced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one’s children and. US Ct App 7th Cir WI. 118 US 356. (1985). Parent’s interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest which has rece ived considerable constitutional protection.. .. (1981). for even minimal periods of time. Loss of First Amendment Freedoms. Scalia. 746 F 2d 1205. Regenold v. and this Court. Kramer. Yick Wo v. It also reveals Roberts’ failure to interpret the Co nstitution in a way that secures its intended constraint on judicial discretion. D. Supreme Court. (1976). Burns. in which O’Connor. Maloney. they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance. 9. parents retain vital interest in pr eventing irretrievable destruction of their family life. appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598. lacks authority to replace it with one of its own devising.. J. if anything. delivered the opinion of the Court. Jaffree.S. Bell v. Parent’s right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of th is amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public i nterest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect.(f) The instant case is a self-contained demonstration of Roberts’ unpredictable and inconsistent application. Rehnquist.. 96 S Ct 2673. Even when blood relationships are strained. Hopkins. custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental prin ciples of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and politic al institutions. and Breyer. Pp. 617 P 2d 886. who is deprived of custod y of his or her child. all of which affirm. In the Interest of Cooper . Inc . the absolute Constitutional right of parents to actually BE parents to their children. 54 P. 455 US 745. Elrod v. 435 US 963. City of Milwaukee. The Constitution prescribes the procedure for determining the reliability of te stimony in criminal trials. 527 F Supp 538.C. Doe v. Sout er. 472 US 38. D. 441 F Supp 1247. The rights of parents to the care. in which Stevens. Irwin. . Though First Amendment rights are not absolu te. Kennedy. J. joined. suffers thereby grievous loss an d such loss deserves extensive due process protection. 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584. 105 S Ct 2479. U. even though temporarily. 427 US 347 . 369 NE 2d 858. 68 Ill 2d 419. Matter of Delaney. 2d 424. Langton v. Baby Fold. and 14. IL. J. (1982). Thomas. of Michigan. reversed and remanded. and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendme nt (First) and Amendments 5. 621 P 2d 437. a state may not interfere with a parent’s custodial ri ghts absent due process protections. The several states have no greater power to restrain individual freedoms protec ted by the First Amendment than does the Congress of the United States. Oklahoma (1980 ). filed an opinio n concurring in the judgment. 3d 656. (1977). (1984). Law and court procedures that are “fair on their faces” but administered “with an evi l eye or a heavy hand” was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. a parent. unquestiona bly constitutes irreparable injury. 147 Wash. (1886). JJ. from one perspective or another. Co nn.. thus. SECTION 25 THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE A PARENT Below are excerpts of case law from state appellate and federal district courts and up to the U. the burden of p roving which rests on their government.S.C. Ginsburg. Wallace v.

Sidoti. given the centra lity of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility. resident nor present. 440 US 268. custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right. Quilloin v. A parent’s right to the custody of his or her children is an element of “liberty” gua ranteed by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constit ution. The U. 651.” Meyer v. and C. 746 f 2d 1205. 324 A 2d 90. (1952). “Separated as our issue is from that of the future interests of the children..S. reliable adult.” May v. 434 US 246. (1985). DC. as to be guaranteed protection under the First. Elrod. Orr v. Parent’s rights have been recognized as being “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man. A parent’s right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives f rom 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 chil dren. custody. VA (1976). Matter of Gentry. Springfield.” Carson v. 707 F 2d 582.S. US Ct App (198 3). thus.Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by t his amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14. 466 US 429. Walcott. Anderson. 369 NW 2d 889. 533. 1242^Q 45. No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child. 595^Q599. MI App Div (1983). pr otection. (1979). 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. Pal more v. liberty or property without due process of law nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws. . A child’s corresponding right to protection from interference in the relatio nship derives from the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving. Decl aration of Independence –life. Reality of private biases and possible injury they might inflict were impermiss ible considerations under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Stanle y v.) Kelson v. The state cannot be permitted to cla ssify on the basis of sex.S. Mabra v. 92 S Ct 1208. 843. In re: J. Schmidt. 649. 104 S Ct 1879. (1978). 345 US 528. 98 S Ct 549. Illinois. (1985). (1972). supra 129 NJ Super. Nebraska. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (California) held that the parent -child relationship is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. US Ct App 9th Cir . 73 S Ct 840. where a mother is neither domiciled. 43 S Ct 625. The Court stressed. US Ct App 7th Cir WI. and Fourteenth Amend ments of the United States Constitution. 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 constitut ionally be treated differently from a currently married father living with his c hild. “the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and.S. care. at 489. 767 F 2d 651. absent a powerful countervailing interest. DC E . Orr. (See.. or which is embodied in t he concept of “liberty” as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th A mendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. WI (1973). The parent-child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Proces s Clause of the 14th Amendment. re sponsible. 35 6 F Supp 620.D. 99 S Ct 1102. management and companionship of her minor children without hav ing jurisdiction over her in person. liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the 14th A mendment of the United States Constitution — No state can deprive any person of li fe. Ninth. we h ave before us the elemental question whether a court of a state. 262 US 390. Bell v. Franz v. The U. (1923).” A parent’s interest in the companionship. 255^Q56. even statutes purport edly designed to compensate for and ameliorate the effects of past discriminatio n against women must be carefully tailored. 411 F Supp 645. Legislative classifications which distributes benefits and burdens on the basis of gender carry the inherent risk of reinforcing stereotypes about the proper p lace of women and their need for special protection. may cut off her immediate right to t he care. City of Milwaukee. A parent’s right to care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamen tal. 405 US 645. U.

The Constitution also protects “the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters. 312 F 2d 257. Stanton. (1956). Connecticut. 1910 In controversies affecting the custody of an infant. Gross v. but also a freedom of personal choice in certain matters of marriage and family life. FROM THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT. (1972). Lord. 95 S Ct 1373. Brennan. Thus. and the parent-child relationship are a mong those fundamental “liberty” interests protected by the Constitution. of certain rights. The right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a showing o f fitness. which is the exclusive means of effecting that right. State of Il linois. liberty and pursuit of happiness” phrase of the Declaration of Ind ependence. shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The Ninth Amendment acknowledged the prior existence of fundamental rights with it: “T he enumeration in the Constitution. In re U. the interest and welfare o f the child is the primary and controlling question by which the court must be g uided. (1982).” Federal Courts (and State Courts). Bravo. Fantony. State Judges. 666 F. 456 F. to visi tation. and visitation rights. 10. Brennan v. Griswold v. 1376. 421 US 7.2d 532. under Griswold can protect. and parental . There is a family right to privacy which the state cannot invade or it b ecomes actionable for civil rights damages. Wade. 93 S Ct 705. State’s power to legislate. was re cently described by the Supreme Court as founded on the “Constitutional underpinni ng of … a recognition that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14 th Amendment includes not only the freedoms explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights. and good citizenship is essential to that end. This rule is based upon the theory that the state must perpetuate itself. 648 P 2d 1364.2d 1328. and such right is scarcely less s acred than the right to life and liberty. (1963). the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care. cert denied 92 S Ct 2411. including determinations of custodial. No longer is the femal e destined solely for the home and the rearing of the family. Utah. is subject to s crutiny 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 declar es fundamental personal rights…Fourteenth Amendment encompasses and applied to sta tes those preexisting fundamental rights recognized by the Ninth Amendment. and is manifested in all animal life. and yet deny protection under Title 42 USC § 1983. 35 L Ed 2d 147.” The United States Supreme Court in a long line of decisions has recognized that matters involving marriage. as well as federal. the decision in Roe v. procreation. 410 US 113. (1973). (1975).P. Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular em phasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. 454 A 2d 901. is to negate the r ight completely. yet among mankind the necessity for government has forced the recognition of the rule that the perpetuity of the state is the first consideration. (1981). Pfizer v. love and affect ion of his children. US Ct App MN. Fantony v.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 jus tify a statute that discriminates on the basis of gender.. The rights of parents to parent-child relationships are recognized and upheld. Article 1 § 1. Though nature gives to parents t he right to the custody of their own children. adjudicate and administer all aspects of family la w. and only the male for the marketplace and the world of ideas. company. Stanton v. and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law. 28 USCA § 2411. have the responsibility to respect and protec t persons from violations of federal constitutional rights. under the “life. (1965).” The non-custodial divorced parent has no way to implement the const itutionally protected right to maintain a parental relationship with his child e xcept through visitation. 122 A 2d 593. To acknowledge the protected status of the relationshi p as the majority does. abandonment or substantial neglect is so fundamental and basic as to rank among the rights contained in this Amendment (Ninth) and Utah’s Constitution. Wise v. 381 US 479. (198 2).

35 Am. Granville. 466] to the custody of their own children. and all the elemen ts of the best civilization. except only when it is essential for the good of s ociety. that it is in such homes and under such influences that the sweetest. including it among those rights deemed fundamental. not the government from the pe ople. and enforces. in a sense. or (2) actions or omissions that ar e not constitutional violations in themselves. People. As a fundamental right. Gr een.S. App. (N. and that their welfare and interests are best subserved under such control. they will both be continually harmed. which should serve t o maintain and protect parental rights for many years to come. OR CONTROL OF HIS OR HER SUBORDINATES. by common law. SECTION 26 ARE SUPERVISORS LIABLE FOR HIS OR HER CULPABLE ACTION OR INACTION IN THE SUPERVI SION. 13 Colo. except wh en they are unsuitable persons to be entrusted with their care. custody. Dec.C.authority itself is subordinate to this supreme power. that. 48 Colo. but foreseeably leads to a consti . § 1983. and. CPS or FBI. comfort and interest of such child in regulating its custody during the period of its minori ty. th e natural parents are entitled to the custody of their minor children. control. or when some exceptional circumstances appear which render such custody inimicable to the best interests of the child. 406. and only supervenes wit h its sovereign power when the necessities of the case require it. and cares for the child. 111 P. or causes to be subjec ted” another to a constitutional deprivation. personal involvement in the alleged constituti onal violation on the part of the defendant. 271. See 42 U. and edu cation. Y. it is strong in patriotism. 25-26.) 64. when a state is based an d build upon such homes. While the right of a parent to th e custody of its infant child is therefore. to consult the welfare. As can be seen from the cases described above. the members of which are bound toget her by ties entwined through ‘bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh’. the right ca n never be lost or taken away so long as the parent properly nurtures. Supreme Court has consistently protected parental rights. Th us. 653. the statutes of this state. are best nurtured and grow to wholesome fruition.S. a nd most attractive qualities of human nature. 454 (C olo. noblest. 1910) CONCLUSION The U. FOR HIS OR HER ACQUIESCENCE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEPRIVATION OR FOR CONDUCT THAT SHOWED A RECKLESS OR CALLOS INDIF FERENCE TO THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS? Section 1983 places liability on ANY person who “subjects. The Court decisively confir med these rights in the recent case of Troxel v.’ Mercein v. purest. 103. 21. The experience of man has demonstrated that the best development of a young lif e is within the sacred precincts of a home. contingent. so essential to good citizenship. Wilson v. 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 b ut to ANY government official whether it is the police. courage. and control of their own offspring . But as government should never interfere wi th the natural rights of man. 1) to restrict the power of the government and 2) to protect the people from the government. Mitchell. McKercher v. the right which nature gives to pare nts [48 Colo. It is recognized that: ‘The moment a child is born it owes allegiance to the government of the country of i ts birth. As long as CPS is allowed to have an exaggerated view of their power andis allo wed by state officials and the courts to exploit that power and abuse it against both children and parents. likewise. This language su ggests that there are two ways a defendant may be liable for a constitutional de privation under § 1983: (1) direct. the state recognizes. and is entitled to the protection of that government. maintains . by natural law. And such governm ent is obligated by its duty of protection. The constituti on is there for two primary reasons. parental rights have reached their highest level of protection in over 75 years. 25 Wend. 58 Pac. parental liberty is to be protected by the highest standard of review: the compelling interest t est. Accordingly these recurring facts in the experience of man resulted in a presumption establishing prima facie that parents are in e very way qualified to have the care.

A. 1981): A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right. or omits to perform an act which [s/]he is legally required to do. 743-44 (9th Cir. 1997). at 743-44. City of Fr anklin. Duffy.tutional violation. a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) a state official and private individual(s) reached an understanding to deprive the plaintiff of his c onstitutional rights. 1984). “Supervisory indifference or tacit authorization of subordinates’ miscon duct may be a causative factor in constitutional injuries they inflict.” Watkins v. Plaintiff told state Defendants in writing and over the pho ne that Maskery was a fraud and impersonating a therapist prior to submitting th e petition to the court yet the state Defendants willfully filed the fraudulent petition. 3d 1189 (9th Cir. C. There is little question here that Coop er 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. or control of his subordinates. Br okaw v. Duffy. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit offered a most co gent discussion of this issue in Arnold v. Not only did both Bon nie Maskery and the state Defendants conspire to harm Mrs. 63 7 F. or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to d o that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made…. 146 F. Duffy. 1998) (internal quotation and citations omitted). if a private citizen conspir es with a state actor. 588 F.” Fries v. Helsper. 980 F. alleged just such a conspiracy between Weir and Karen. 457 ( 7th Cir.3d 452. but also by setting in motion a series of acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause o thers to inflict the constitutional injury. City of Los Angeles. 1992) “To establish § 1983 liability through a conspiracy theory. and Dep uty Sheriff James Brokaw. Machines Corp. we held that for purposes of § 1983 liability the requisite ca usal chain can occur through the ‘setting in motion [of] a series of acts by other s which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury. 946 F. 373 (4th Cir. Anyone who “causes” any citizen to be subjected to a constitutional deprivation is also liable. participates in anothe r’s affirmative acts. C. City of Oakland. 646 (9th Cir. 2d 740. 3d 1087.. which he knew or reasonably should have known would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury. A supervisor is liable under § 1983 if s/he “does an affirmative act. Mercer County.2d 740. 2d 740 (9th Cir. and (2) those individual(s) were willful participants in j oint activity with the State or its agents. 1093 (9th Cir. 1107 (7th Cir. 737 F.” Harris v. 1997) A supervisor can be liable in his individual capacity if “he set in motion a seri es of acts by others. Dutkiewicz because sh e practiced Wicca. Maskery continued to conspire with state Defendants by manufa cturing evidence and lying in order to deny the Plaintiffs their due process rig hts to a fair trial. There. Specifically.” Slakan v. The requisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct p ersonal participation in the deprivation. “We have explained the nature of the causation required in cases of this kind in Johnson v. supervision. at 1355 (emphasis added) (quotin g Johnson v. “In this case. asserted that Weir and Karen conspi . if he does an affirmative act. 2d 368. 235 F.” Larez v.” Causing constitutional injury. for conduct that showed a reckless or callous indifference to the rights of others. 2d 630. 1978)). International Bus. 1978). Porter.3d 1000 (7th Cir 2001) quoting Bowman v. then the private citizen is subject to § 1983 liability. Johnson v.’ Id. Roderick. for his acqui escence in the constitutional deprivation ….2d 1104. 588 F. 126 F. personal part icipation is not the only predicate for section 1983 liability. A supervisor is liable for “his own culpable action or inac tion in the training. SECTION 27 CAN A PRIVATE CITIZEN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER § 1983 EVEN THOUGH PRIVATE CITIZENS CAN NOT ORDINARILY BE HELD LIABLE UNDER § 1983? While a private citizen cannot ordinarily be held liable under § 1983 because tha t statute requires action under color of state law. 1991). 1978). 145 F. 588 F. Moreover. 7 43-44 (9th Cir. or knowingly refused to terminate a series of acts by othe rs.A. Id. within th e meaning of section 1983.2d 1350 (9th Cir. participates in another’s affirmative acts.

But. Gardnerian Wicca. 2001. No more is required at this st age.A. 856 F. because of the religious beliefs and pra ctices of C. Pagan. the list of religious preferences i n the United States Air Force Personnel Data System (MilMod) was augmented to in clude: Dianic Wicca. should remain in foster care.” Brokaw v. investigatory conferences held by the DCFS. SECTION 29 ARE “MANDATED REPORTERS” STATE ACTORS? “As the district court correctly found. Druidism.3d 1000 (7th Cir 2001) “Alternatively.A. Landon: concerns the rights of a Wiccan inma te in a penitentiary. Butzner of the Fourth Circuit Federal Appeals Court confirmed the Dettm er v Landon decision (799F 2nd 929) in 1986. a court hearing.” “[C]onduct that is formally ‘private’ may become so en twined with governmental policies or so impregnated with a governmental characte r as to become subject to the constitutional limitations placed upon state actio .S. Karen and Deputy Sheriff James Brokaw knew the allegations of child neglect were false. why and how. Judge J.’ Jones v. 235 F. what.” Butzner J.A’s family by having him removed from his home and by subjected his family to governmental interference. they cannot escape liability by pointing to the decisions of pro secutors or grand jurors or magistrates to confine or prosecute him. Seax Wicca. Wiccan priests and priestesses have been given access to penitentiaries in both countries. Weir and Karen seek cover in the various proceedings instituted a s a result of their complaint: a formal petition for adjudication of wardship. as we have held in the criminal context. It i s abundantly clear that none of the State Defendants can claim that one’s First Am endment right was not clearly established.’s parents to divorce. insofar as the Hospital was acting in the latter capacity – as part of the reporting and enforcement machinery for CWA. He said: “We agree with the District Court that the doctrine taught by the Church of Wicca is a religion. Moreover.A has alleged all of the n ecessary facts: the who. a go vernment agency charged with detection and prevention of child abuse and neglect – the Hospital was a state actor. a nd Wicca. in July 1983 to file false allegations of child neglect in order to cause the DCFS to remove C.” Brokaw v. when. and a dispositional hearing by the court. [FN 12] While Weir and Karen claim that C. seemingly arguing t hat because a court determined that C.A’s family.3d 1000 (7th Cir 2001) SECTION 28 IS WICCA / WICCAN A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RELIGION? Government recognition Wiccan and other Neopagan groups have been recognized by governments in the US a nd Canada and given tax-exempt status. 994 (7th Cir. adjudication of ward ship by the court. This “deprived him of his First Amendment r ight to freely exercise his religion and his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws. 1 986 Fourth Circuit. 235 F. Mercer County. C. and the privilege of performin g handfastings/marriages.1988).2d 985. assuming that Wei re. Mercer County. Center Moriches Union Free School District: concerns the rental of school facilities after hours by a religious group.” Dettmer vs. A case was brought in 1983 in the U.A. from his home and to thereby cause C. The court found that 3 employees of a prison had restricted an inmate in the performance of his Wiccan rituals. District Court in Mic higan. ‘[i] f police officers have been instrumental in the plaintiff’s continued confinement or prosecution.red with James.A. then these proceedings actually weaken their case because that means they succeeded in the earlier stages of their conspiracy –they created upheaval i n C. who was a deputy sheriff.’s allegations a re too vague to withstand dismissal under 12(b)(6). that demo nstrates that their complaints of neglect were justified. Lamb’s chapel v. Shamanism. On March 15. Cit y of Chicago.

” Id. 42. 280 (2nd Cir 1999) (quoting Blessing v. 131. deprives a person of any rights. Atkins. 299 (1966)” Mo ra P. 1974)(quoting Evans v. 8 (1980) (“Condu ct by persons acting under color of state law which is wrongful under 42 U. § 1983 … cannot be immunized by state law. . 487 U . 329 . See Martinez v. Newton. Sugarman. 764-65 (2d Cir. 49 (1988)) (other citations and internal quotation marks omitted) Share this: Twitter20 Facebook1K+ Email Google Leave a Reply Enter your comment here. California. 487 U. In certain instances the actions of private entities may be considered t o 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 Gov ernment but for the activities of the private parties.Enter your comment here. Freestone. State-conferred immunity cannot shield a state actor form liabi lity under § 1983...S. 189 F. v.” Hardy v. West v. SECTION 30 CAN THE STATE SHIELD A “STATE ACTOR” FROM LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 1983? No they cannot. 284 n. 444 U.3d 789.: 98-9595) 2nd Cir (1999). 296. .3d 273. Section 1983 imposes liability on anyone who. 499 F2 d 761. Casey. 795 (2nd Cir.n . “[T]he core purpose of § 1983 is ‘to provide compensatory relief to those deprived of their federal rights by state actors’. (quoting. Corp. inter alia. under color of state law. “The traditional definition of acting under color of state l aw requires that the defendant in a § 1983 action have exercised power possessed b y virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed wi th the authority of state law. Perez v..S.S.. (Case No.S. Commissioner of the Dep’t of Healt h. a regime that all owed a state immunity defense to trump the imposition of liability under § 1983 wo uld emasculate the federal statute. 141 (1988)). 164 F.S. Indeed. v.. New York City Health & Hosps.”) [cite omitted].. Inc. 340 !997). privileges. K & A Radiologic Tech. 1999) (quoting Felder v. 277. 520 U. . or immunities secured by the Constitution a nd laws. Rosemary McIntyre.C.S. Servs. 382 U.

Gravatar WordPress.com Logo Twitter picture Facebook photo Google+ photo .

com News Calendar January 2015 S M T W T F S .Around News One donnellyjustice the CITIZENS of FASHION Something For The People WordPress.com News Web News One donnellyjustice the CITIZENS of FASHION Something For The People WordPress.com News The News One donnellyjustice the CITIZENS of FASHION Something For The People WordPress.

com. The Hero Theme.« Dec 1 2 4 5 6 11 12 18 19 25 26 3 7 8 9 13 14 20 21 27 28 10 15 16 17 22 23 24 29 30 31 Create a free website or blog at WordPress. .

Join 46 other followers Build a website with WordPress.com loading .Follow Follow “Something For The People” Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

How Child Protection Services Buys and Sells Our Children A Site To Teach Parents how to Protect themselves and their Children from being abused by Child Protection Services Home About This Site .

.

mother and child apart so bitterly than our present Family Court System. White .Something Every Parent Should Have – A How To Booklet. Judge Watson L. New York There is something bad happening to our children in family courts today that is c ausing them more harm than drugs.Never Trust Anyone From CPS Leave a comment Go to comments 25 Votes There is no system ever devised by mankind that is guaranteed to rip husband and wife or father. Judge Brian Lindsay Retired Supreme Court Judge New York. more harm than crime and even more harm than c hild molestation.

com http://www. The court found that a child’s statements to a counselor during therapy and a physician duri ng a physical examination were hearsay and inadmissible at trial under the U. 1991) A 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 requis ite proof of parental unfitness.G. The decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the practice of a no pri or consent interview of a child. Georgia Written by: Thomas M. CONVICTION AND RISK. Dutkiewicz. WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DECISIONS YOU CHOOSE TO MAKE OR FAIL TO MAKE.O. when conducted on private property without consen t. YOU DO SO BY YOUR OWN CHOICE. possibly the owner of the private property. Box 3005 Bristol. child. a warrant. WE ONLY OFFER UP AN OPINION FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW. IF YOU CHOOSE TO USE ANY OF THIS INFORMATION. or exigent circumstances. President Connecticut DCF Watch P. Walcott. (1978) HEARSAY STATEMENTS INADMISSIBLE FROM CASE WORKERS OR POLICE A. . v. the investigative interview of a child cons titutes a search and seizure and.S. probable cause. 434 U. v. Heck et al (No. ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES O NLY.S. CT 06011-3005 860-833-4127 Admin@connecticutDCFwatch. Quilloin v. such an interview is an u nreasonable search and seizure in violation of the rights of the parent.connecticutdcfwatch. 01-3648. (2nd Cir.S. The mere possibility or risk of danger does not constitute an emergency or exige nt circumstance that would justify a forced warrantless entry and a warrantless seizure of a child. will ordinarily constitute a clear violation of th e constitutional rights of parents under the 4th and 14th Amendments to the U. 2003 US App. Constitution. IT S UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR CPS TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION AND INTERVIEW A CHILD ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES OR PROBABLE CAUSE. and. 255.com WE AT CONNECTICUT DCF WATCH ARE NOT ATTORNEYS AND ARE UNABLE TO OFFER ANY LEGAL ADVICE.Superior Court Judge Cobb County. BEFORE MA KING ANY DECISIONS. Rice. Commonwealth of Kentucky The Court of Appeals of Kentucky vacated and remanded a decision by the Barren C ircuit Court which terminated parental rights because of sexual abuse. 246. SEEK LEGAL ADVISE FROM AN ATTORNEY IN THE AREA OF LAW YOU WI SH TO PURSUE. Hurlman v. The decision in the case of Doe et al. According to the Court. Lexis 7144) will affect the manner in which law enforcement and Child Protective Services ( CPS ) investigations of alleged child abuse or neglect are conducted.G.

HRS. App. 2 SECTION 2 – Are All CPS Workers in the United States Subject to the 4th And 14th A mendment? 3 SECTION 3 – The Fourth Amendment s Impact on Child Abuse Investigations. LEXIS 163 (Ky. July 21.C. 2004-CA-001979-ME and NO. Crawford v. because the child did not testify at trial and there was no opportunity for cross-examination of the child. No. 01-FS-1307.S. LEXIS 390 (D. the child welfare agency failed to present clear and convincing e vidence that the child had been sexually abused.B & In re TI. 1354. Ct. 2005 Ky. . App. 1 SECTION 1 – Never Ever Trust Anyone from CPS/DCF. 1 About The Authors. 01-FS-1320. 2004-CA-002032-ME. 12 SECTION 9 – Due Process. 8 SECTION 4 – When Is Consent Not Consent?. 2005) TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface.. Cite: No. 15 SECTION 12 – Decisions of the United States Supreme Court Upholding Parental Right s as Fundamental . 36..Supreme Court case. 11 SECTION 7 – Summary of Family Rights (Family Association) 12 SECTION 8 – Warrantless Entry. Cite: NO. the appeals court holding that the erroneous termination order was based on inadmissible hearsay testimony. collectively known as CPS for the purposes of this handbook. 541 U. 8 SECTION 6 – Do Children Have Legal Standing to Sue CPS for Their Illegal Abduction from Their Home and Violating Their 4th and 14th Amendment Rights?. 2d 177 (2004). CYS and FIA. and consequentl y reversed the termination order and remanded the case for further proceedings c onsistent with its opinion. 158 L. DSS. The material in this handbook should be supplemented by your own c areful study of the 4th and 14th Amendments and other Constitutional protections that are guaranteed even in the context of dealing with CPS..B The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s order terminati ng a father’s parental rights to his children. 124 S. 13 SECTION 10 – Seizures (Child Removals) 14 SECTION 11 – Immunity. based on that court’s finding of negl ect. Because the child’s statements were inadmissible. 2005 D. Ct. 1 Introduction. E very state has variances of CPS in one form or another. App 2005) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: In re TY.. DCFS. DCYS. 16 PREFACE This is only a guide to your constitutional protections in the context of an inv estigation of alleged child abuse and neglect by Child Protective Services ( CPS ). Ed. The Court of Appeals concluded that the father a dequately preserved his objection to admission of the testimony. DHS. Washington. Some are called DCF.C.

As you read this handbook. you refuse them entry. that CPS and juvenile judges start using common sense before rushing to jud gment and to conduct their investigations the same as police in order to be cons titutionally correct and legal. has no legal warrant. 6th and s without evidence. 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. and t . If CPS lies to the AAG and the Judge to get a warrant/order and you can prove it . You can sue the social worker and the police who assist them and th ey both lose immunity from being sued. which are required under the war rant clause of the 14th Amendment. they are all subject to and must yi eld to the 4th and 14th Amendment just like police officers according to the Cir cuit and District Courts of the United States and the Supreme Court. Contrary to what any CPS officials. Another myth is that CPS can conduct an investigation in your home without your consent and speak to your child without your consent. CPS anywhere in the United States cannot lawfully enter your home and speak with you and your children. the AAG. abusive and many times unlawful actions of CPS or i f you have never been investigated by CPS. you will be a mazed what your rights are and how CPS conspires with the Assistant Attorney Gen eral ( AAG ) who then in turn has the Judge issue warrant/orders that are unlawful a nd unconstitutional under the law. CPS employees will lie to y ou and tell you they do not need your consent. The fact of the matter is they abs olutely need your consent to come into your home and speak with your children.The intent of this handbook is to inform parents. whether you are a parent caugh t up in the very oppressive. The authors fought ba corrupt organization whose order of the day was to 14th Amendment rights and to fabricate false charge The author s goals are to not have another child illegally abducted from their fam ily. 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. If a CPS official knocks on your door. ABOUT THE AUTHORS The authors of this handbook s. this is just a myth. If there is no exigent circumstances (imminent danger) to your children with probable cause (credible witness) to support a warrant. they lose their immun ity 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 righ t s lawsuit. are not attorneys and do not pretend to be attorney of a false report and were falsely accused by DCF in investigation being conducted. Many individuals come to the wrong con clusion that the parents must have been abusive or neglectful for CPS to investi gate. they also lo se 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 w ithout probable cause or exigent circumstances. The authors were victims Connecticut without a proper ck for 8 months against this deny them their 4th. The fact of the matter is that over 80% of the calls p honed into CPS are false and bogus. If the police assisted CPS in that deprivation of rights. In fact. i t is illegal. J uvenile Judge or any social workers may say. CPS workers can be sued for violations of your 4th and 14th Amendments. There a re NO EXCEPTIONS to the Constitution for CPS. and that CPS MUST by law comply with the Warrant Clause as required by the Constitution and the Federal Courts whereas they are gov ernmental officials and are subject to the Constitution as are the police. INTRODUCTION You as a parent or caregiver MUST know your rights and be totally informed of wh at you have a legal right to have and to express.

you should bring your childre n to the door but never open it. standing by itself. they are going to do everything in their power including lying to you and threatening you with po lice presence telling you that you have to let them in. Your response could be yes we argue sometimes and he may raise his voice. CPS must by l aw. We will discuss in further detail what CPS and the police c an and can not do. Remember. Tell t hat to the half dozen social workers currently sitting in jail in California. B oth can be sued. Does your husband yell at the children? your response could be once in a while. instead show them the children are not in immin ent danger and that they are fine. CPS officials will not tell you your rights. The definition is whatever they want it to be. Then they ask. th ey lied to the judge. The next question is. The police may even threa ten you to let CPS in because you are obstructing an investigation. Does your husband drink alcohol? Your respons . and tell you that they can do anything they want and have total immunity. What you think is or is not abuse or neglect. a female CPS worker asks the wife. So if a spouse lies and makes things up. wrong. What you say will more then likely not be written down the way you said it or me ant it.he worker then threatens you with calling the police. mark my word. or someone wanting to get revenge. CPS cannot enter your home and speak with your child ren. But before they leave. A ll CPS agencies across the country have an exaggerated view of their power. they could come back with an unlawful and unconstitutional warrant even though your children are not in imminent danger. And even if they got a name and number from the reporter on the end of the phone. In fact removing a child fr om your home without your consent even for several hours is a seizure under federa l law. Many police o fficers do not realize that CPS MUST comply with the warrant clause of the 14th Amendment or be sued for violating it. ex-spouses. Speaking to your children without your consent is also a seizure under the l aw. If CPS shows up at your door and tells you they need to spe ak with you and your children. you are probably going to get charged with allowi ng it to happen. DCF will lie to you. he/she is also confessi ng that he allowed whatever he/she alleges. For example. Remember. SECTION 1 NEVER EVER TRUST ANYONE FROM CPS/DCF You MUST understand that CPS will not give you or your spouse a Miranda warning nor do they have too. investigate the caller to determine if he or she is the person who they say they are and that what they said is credible. So CPS needs to show the same due diligence as the police to obtain sworn statements. If your spou se gets charged with anything. This is coercion. In fact. CPS has a totally different definition. The call alone. Many bogus calls are ma de by disgruntle neighbors. threatening and intimidation ta ctics even if the police only got the door open so CPS official can gain entry. Does he yell a t you and argue with you. anonymous calls into CPS are NEVER probable cause under the Warran t Clause. you have the legal right to deny them entry under the 4th and 14th Amendment. CPS does not have a legal right to conduct an investigation of alleged child abu se or neglect in a private home without your consent. that also does not support probable cause under the law. If CPS cannot support a warrant and show that the child is in immanent danger along with probable cause. If you do not at least show them your children . Everything CPS sees and hears is written down and eventually given to the AAG fo r your possible prosecution. is insufficient to support probable cause under the law. this is also illegal and u nlawful and both lose immunity. You also need to know that if the focus of the inves tigation is on your spouse or significant other you may think you may not be cha rged with anything and that you are the non-offending spouse.

Remember CPS has no statutory authority to enter your home whe n no crime has been committed. The husband would like to know when this occurred because it did not happe n when he was there. Force them to prove you are guilty. That will be used against you as if you admitted to it. Due to ignorance and/or incompetence. are met by a closed door. argued that the Fourth Amendment was not a pplicable to the activities of their social worker employees. Erie County Dept. They are trained to lie to you to get in any way t hey can and this comes from interviewing employees at DCF. if you choose to do so.e could be yes he has several drinks a week. The Fourth Amendment is applicable to DCF investigators in the cont ext of an investigation of alleged abuse or neglect as are all government officia ls. The Court also stated The Fourth Amendment s prohibit . Remember. This issue is brought out best in Walsh v. Do not willingly admit to it by signing a case plan. case plan or menu. If you agree to it and sign it. the Fourth Amendment applies to them. They will lie and say they have to come in and y ou have to comply. entries into private homes by child welfare workers involve neither searc hes nor seizures under the Fourth Amendment. The social workers. You are assisting the m in their case against you and in your own prosecution if you sign their agreem ents. 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 . Something similar happened to the authors where DCF employees lied in front of t he judge. Now let s translate those benign respons es and see what CPS may write in her paperwork. and thus can be conducted without e ither a warrant or probable cause to believe that a child is at risk of imminent harm. as it does to all other officer s and agents of the state whose request to enter. This will only speed up the process of terminating your parental rig hts. The social workers c laimed. 3:01-cv-7588. CPS will not put anything exculpatory in the record so anyone that reads her no tes will read that the house was a mess and cluttered. Darnold and Brown. CPS could care less about your rights or your children s constitutional rights. SECTION 2 ARE ALL CPS WORKERS IN THE UNITED STATES SUBJECT TO THE 4TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT? Yes they are. you are admitting to the abuse an d/or neglect allegations and to the contents of the record. Do not believe it. Do not sign anything o r agree to anything even if you are not guilty and you agree to go through some horse and pony show. The court disagreed and ruled: Despite the defendant s exaggerated view of the ir powers. likewise it is for CPS employees who are also govern ment officials. CPS routinely will take what you s ay out of context and actually lie in their reports in order to have a successfu l prosecution of their case. Demand a trial at the very first hearing and never stipu late to anything. If it is unlawful and unconstitutional for the police wh o are government officials. When the father drinks. 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 vio lence. your attorney may tell you to sign their agreement so you can get your children back sooner. This is a far cry o n what really took place in that conversation. The c ase plan or whatever they call it in your state is essentially a plea of guilty to the charges. Never give them a chance t o falsify the record or twist your words. The best advice we can offer is before letting any CPS official in your home. of Job and Family Services. is to tell them y ou want your attorney there when they come and schedule a time for the meeting. he yells a t children and wife and wife is a victim of domestic violence. Removing a child from a safe home is more harmful then most alleged alleg ations as stated by many judges. however benign or well-intenti oned. They have an end game in mine and they will misrepre sent the facts and circumstances surrounding what may or may not have happened.

The social worker s third argument. they we re not. (This is the old emergency excuse that has been used for years by soci al workers. was reasonable under the circumstanc es. That statute imposes a duty on certain designated professionals and persons who work with ch ildren or provide child care to report instances of apparent child abuse or negl ect. In other words. The Court continues: The anonymous phone call in this case did not constitute a report of child abuse or neglect. created an emergency situation that led Darnold and Brown reasonably to believe the Walsh children were in danger of im minent harm. The social workers then arg ued that there are exceptions to the Fourth Amendment. There likewise can be no doubt that occasions arise c alling for immediate response.ion on unreasonable searches and seizures applies whenever an investigator. and insufficient medical care and. and that supersedes the Fourth Amend ment. Otherwise child welfare workers would have a free pass into any home in which they have an anonymous report or poor housekeeping. Further. few families are secure and few homes are safe from unwelcome and unjustified intrusion by state officials and officers. responds to an alleged instance of child abuse. or dependency. The social workers argued. The Court went on to rule. shot down by the court. and that the situation wi th the Walsh children was an emergency. Darnold and Brown . But those in stances are the exception. even absent voluntary consent. The police officers. over crowding. The social workers. claiming qualified immunity beca use they had not had training in Fourth Amendment law. the defendants contend that Ohio s statutory framework for learning about and investigation alleg ations of child abuse and neglect supersede their obligations under the Fourth A mendment. This is the old mandatory reporter excuse. then argued that they are obligated under vestigate any reported case of child abuse. conducting an investigation pursuant to 2151. and they wer e just helping the social workers. a rational jury could find that no evid ence points to the opposite conclusion and a lack of sufficient exigent circumstan ces to relieve the state actors here of the burden of obtaining a warrant. even without prior judicial approval. If household clutter justifies warrantless entry and threats of removal of children and arrest or citation of their parents. Against these fundamental rights. claimed that they were immune from liability. and th e plaintiff s attempt to leave. the Defendants argue their entry in to the home. In this case. They have failed to show that a ny exigency that justifies warrantless entry was necessary to protect the welfar e of the plaintiff s children.421(A)(1)(b). shot down by the court. The Court continues with their chastisement of the social workers: There can be at the state can and should protect the welfare of children who are at risk from acts of abuse and neglect. or any other agent of the state.421 of the Ohio Revised code as authorit y for their warrantless entry into and search of the plaintiff s home.42 1(F)(1). shot down by the court. claimed that they could not be sued becau hought the social workers were not subject to the Fourth Amendment. The Court disagreed and ruled: That subjective . they could not be sued for thei r mistake. The soc ial workers second argument. not having received a report described in 2151.421(F)(1) exempts them from the Fourth Amendment misses the ma rk because. The social workers. the defendants argue.) The Court again disagreed and ruled: There is nothing inherently unus ual or dangerous about cluttered premises. They point to the anonymous complaint about clutter on the front porch. much less anything about such vaguely described conditions that could manifest imminent or even possible danger or ha rm to young children. neglect. Darnold and Brown. (Emphasis added) Darn old and Brown s first argument. They point principally to 2151. The Court disagreed and ruled: The defendant s argument that the duty to investigat e created by 2151. be i t a police officer. because they thought the Fourth Amendment did not bind them. a DCF employee. thus perception that children may b e at some risk. Chandler and Kish. and could not have been. These circumstances.

and strip search of a child. not because he perceived any imminent d anger of harm. Floyd. conducted without a search wa rrant and without a special exigency. An essential aspect of the privacy of the home is the parent s and the child s i . The f ourth Amendment preserves the right of the people to be secure in their persons. for a coerced entry into a home to investigate suspected child abuse. 9th Cir. absent exigent circumstances. o r federal government. this would be a different case. (1999) invol ves whether a social worker and a police officer were entitled to qualified immu nity. not to protect the government from the people. Furthermore. that it was settle d constitutional law that. A reasonable official would understand that they could not enter the home without consent or a search warrant. And there we have it: Any government official can be held to know that their offi ce does not give them an unrestricted right to enter peoples homes at will. the police. a rea sonable official would have known that the law barred this entry. And he should have known better.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 did not agree that the social worker and the police officer had qualif y and said. A social worker is not entitled to sacrifice a family s privacy and dignity to her own personal views on how parents ought to d iscipline their children. Brown. or government agency. Chandler and Kish of qualified immunity are therefore denied.) The Court s reasoning for this ruling was simple and straight forward: The reasonab le expectation of privacy of individuals in their homes includes the interests o f both parents and children in not having government officials coerce entry in v iolation of the Fourth Amendment and humiliate the parents in front of the child ren. had the information bee n more alarming. houses without limiting that right to one kind of government official. No o ne was in distress. or local. a child welfare investigation case. the facts in this case are noteworthy for the absence of emergency. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case. Calabretta v. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals defines the law and states In our circuit. 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 wo rkers especially when they attempt to coerce or threaten to call the police so t hey can conduct their investigation. The police officer was there to back up the social worker s insi stence on entry against the mother s will. the people have the constitutional right to h old the government accountable when it does deny its citizens their rights under the law even if it is CPS. inte rrogation of a child. had there been reason to fear imminent harm to a child. And within those documents. PARENTS HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE BY CPS AND THE POLICE. 2d 812 (9th Cir. (emphasis a dded) In other words. police could not enter a dwelling without a warrant even under statutory authority where probable cause existed. Pierce County (797 F. 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 o fficer would know it. We held in White v. state. Any government official (CPS) can be held to know that their office does not give them unrestri cted right to enter people s homes at will. Th e Court then lowers the boom by stating: The claims of defendants Darnold. o ne to which we have no occasion to speak. had the social worker or police officer been alarmed. (The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written to protect the people from the government. THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT SAID. 1986).

nterest in the privacy of the relationship with each other. . a court order is the equivale nt of a warrant. In our circuit. or exigent circumstances. The decision in the case of Doe et al. filed December 18. Koehler Family. T he United States Supreme Court has held that courts may not use a different stan dard other than probable cause for the issuance of such orders. possibly the owner of the private property. The dec ision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found that this practice. it is not based on best interest of the child or personal feeling. whether the child is on private or public early stages of an investigation is danger. probable cause. F. Considering that one critical purpose of the to determine whether or not the child is in o require a high threshold level of evidence d. the warrant will not survive a judicial challenge in the higher c ourts. [m]ere parrotin g of the phrase best interest of the child without supporting facts and a legal ba sis is insufficient to support a Court order based on reasonableness or any othe r ground. . v. The Court went on to say. THE U. February 14. the appellate court ruled that the order to investigate the Ko ehler home was in violation of the law and must be reversed. absent exigent circumstances. After reviewing the briefs of all the parties. Constitution. will ordinarily constitute a clear violation of t he constitutional rights of parents under the 4th and 14th Amendments to the U. 01-3648. a juvenile judge s decision on whether or not to issue a warrant i s a legal one. Any government official can be held to know that their office does not give them an unrestricted right to enter peoples homes at will. 193 F. Pi erce County a child welfare investigation case. [a]bsent some tangible evidence of abuse or neglect.S. the investigative interview of a child co nstitutes a search and seizure and. Anonymous tips are never probable cause. 1999). The pri nciple that government officials cannot coerce entry into peoples houses without . such an interview is an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the rights of the parent. 2001. In North Hudson DYFS v. In other words.S . from who seems t to commence the interview of a chil property. that is no pr ior consent interview of a child. the Appellate c ourt granted the emergency application on February 6. Wiscon sin. 2000. Griffin v. [I]n context of a seizure of a chil d by the State during an abuse investigation .3d 581. Iowa district Court for Polk County. v. Williams. Lexis 7144) will affect the manner in which law enforcement and child protective services investigations of alleged child abuse or neglect are conducted. 2003 US App. PARROTING OF THE PHRASE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD WITHOUT SUPPORTING FACTS OR A L EGAL BASIS IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A WARRANT OR COURT ORDER TO ENTER A HOME. 2001. when conducted on private property without cons ent. (Emphasis added) Tenenbaum v. 483 U. and. Heck et al (No. According to the Court. 868 (1987). We held in White v. and if so. a warrant. police could not enter a dwelling with out a warrant even under statutory authority where probable cause existed. 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 wer e not wearing socks in the winter or sleep in beds. a reasonable official would have known that the law barred this e ntry. 602 (2nd Cir .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 Courts do not authorize fishing expeditions into citizens houses. The Court explained.K. child . that it was settled constitutiona l law that. If a court issues a warrant based on an uncorroborated anonymous tip. Id.

1999) Calabretta al so cites various cases form other jurisdictions for its conclusion. Id.W. including exigent circ umstances coupled with probable cause. Calabretta v. Second. In cases of alleged child abuse. at 1130-1131. We conclude that the Warrant Clause must be complied with.2d 1087 (3rd Cir. The 9th Circuit further opined in Wallis v. The fact that the suspected crime may be heinous whether it involves children or adults does not p rovide cause for the state to ignore the rights of the accused or any other part ies. it is important to emphasize that in the area of child abuse. as wi th the investigation and prosecution of all crimes. the state is constrained by the substantive and procedural guarantees of the Constitution. a court order is the equivalent of a warrant . [I]n context of a seizure of a child by the State during an abuse investigation . This happens thousands of times every day in the United States where the end justifies the mean even if it is unlawful. Dauph in County Social Servs. Id. policies. Another recent 9th Circuit case also held that there is no exception to the warr ant requirement for social workers in the context of a child abuse investigation . go vernmental failure to abide by constitutional constraints may have deleterious l ong-term consequences for the child and. 602 (2nd Cir. This was the case involving DCF in Connecticut. See State v. 3 42N. such as a need to protect a child against imminent danger of serious bodily injury. ille gal and unconstitutional. Many of their policies are unlawf ul and contradictory to the Constitution. Further. that they can do bas ically do anything they want including engaging in deception. misrepresentation of the facts and lying to the judge. Williams. by definition. indeed. Hatter. . 189 F.3d 581. none of the exceptions to the Warrant Clause apply in this situation. a s noted by the Second Circuit.. Iowa district Court for Polk County. ). Good ho lds that a search warrant or exigent circumstances. This idea of not complying with the 4th and 14th Amendmen ts is so impregnated in their statutes. DCF takes on the persona of the feeling of exaggerated p ower over parents and that they are totally immune. time enou gh to apply to a magistrate for an ex parte removal order. 855 (Iowa 1983) (holding the exigent circumstances exception to th e Warrant Clause only applies when an immediate major crisis in the performance o f duty afforded neither time nor opportunity to apply to a magistrate. 1999). Otherwise. DCF has unlawful polices giving workers permission to coerce. First. v.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 1989) held that a social worker and police officer were not entitled to qualified immunity for insisting on ent ering her house against the mother s will to examine her child for bruises.K. DCF is the moving force behind the on-going violations of federal law and violatio ns of the Constitution. Ill-consi dered and improper governmental action may create significant injury where no pr oblem of any kind previously existed.3d 808 (9th Cir. Good v. 193 F. It affec ts all and what they do. was necessary for an ent ry without consent. 891 F. 200 0). intimidate and to threatened innocent families with gover nmental intrusion and oppression with police presences to squelch and put down a ny citizen who asserts their 4th Amendment rights by not allowing an unlawful in vestigation to take place in their private home when no imminent danger is prese nt. Spencer. serious injustices may result. F. But none of the regulations cited say that the soci al worker may force her way into a home without a search warrant in the absence of any emergency. . because there is.2d 851. . and the anonymous tip claiming bruises was in the case insuf ficient to establish special exigency. Tenenbaum v. that [b]ecause the swing of every pendulum brings with it potential adverse c onsequences. Floyd. practices and customs. 202 F.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 kn ow it. for the entire family. The [California] regulations they cite require social workers to respond to vari ous contacts in various ways.

When are the judges going to wake up and see that they are sending childre n to their death and a life of abuse when children are removed from safe homes b ased on the mere opinion of a bunch of social workers. and sexual abuse and kills more children then parents in the United States. asked others to lie.000 children. CPS workers have lied in reports and court documents. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more har m and death than any human being combined. It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse. neglect and even killed at the hands of Child Protective Services. SECTION 3 THE FOURTH AMENDMENT S IMPACT ON CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATIONS. They even have crossed state lines impers onating police. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said it best. CPS perpetrates more abuse. T here are also a number of documented cases where the case worker killed the chil d. CPS nationwide is guilty of more human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which they were re moved. kidnapping children and then were prosecuted for their actions. neglect.5 at the hands of parents per 100. The govern ment s interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children f .4 Parents 59 13 241 12 1.We can tell you stories for hours where CPS employees committed criminal acts an d were prosecuted and went to jail and/or were sued for civil rights violations.5 Imagine that. 6.000 children in the United States and includes DCF in C onnecticut. The following statistics represent the number of cases per 100. If the citizens of this country hold CPS to the sam e standards that they hold parents too. and k idnapped children without court orders. Perpetrators of Maltreatment Physical Abuse Sexual Abuse Neglect Medical Neglect Fatalities CPS 160 112 410 14 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that are suppos ed to protect them and only 1. This information is from The National Center on Child Abuse and Negle ct (NCCAN) in Washington.

not understanding the right not to consent.00. if you don t let me in the home. If a social worker says. I was visiting my grandchildren this morning and I discovered that one of my grandchildren. or tri ckery invalidate voluntary consent. Schneckloth v. Social workers are not exemp t from the requirements of the Fourth Amendment when they act alone.rom physical abuse. this would be intimidation. Wilson. Coercion can be mental as well as physical. in pursuit of a child abuse investigation. but to allow ent ry negates any claim that the entry was lawfully gained through the channel of c onsent. is being locked in his bedroom without food fo r days at a time. ANY type of communication. My name is Mildred Smith.3d 808 (1999). For example. Floyd. 1991). . Bustamonte. Cal abretta v. Lion Boulos v. Alab ama. They are not exempt from its rules if they are accompanied by a police officer. Blackburn v. 501 US 429 (1991). Tackett. here is my address and phone number. 834 F. 2d 504 (9th Cir. the Ninth Circuit held Fourth Amendment applies just as much to a child abuse investigation as it does to any criminal or other governmental investigation. and he looked pale and weak to me the social worker certainly h as evidence of exigent circumstances and is only one step away from having proba ble cause. Consent that is the product of official intimidation or h arassment is not consent at all. Police office rs are not exempt from the requirement even if all they do is get the front door open for the social worker. 1987). 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. invaded a family home without a warrant violating the Fourth Amendment rights of both children and parents. Cassady v. age 5. the social workers. Bostick. if a hot lin e call comes in and says. 938 F. Johnny. 2d (6th Cir. police officers. 412 US 218 (1973). 361 US (1960) PROBABLE CAUSE & EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES The Fourth Amendment does not put a barrier in the way of a social worker who ha s reliable evidence that a child is in imminent danger. which held that social workers who. which conveys the idea to the parent that they have no realistic alternative. Lack of intelligence.000. I will take your children aw ay a parent who then opens the door has not given free and voluntary consent. but also protecting children s interest in the privacy and dig nity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents. Citizens do not forfeit their constitutional rig hts when they are coerced to comply with a request that they would prefer to ref use. 189 F. This statement came in a case. DCF s policy clearly tells the social worker that they can threaten parents even if the parents assert their 4th Amendment rights. Florida v. I will get a warrant from the judge or I will call the police if you do not let me in negate consent. SECTION 4 WHEN IS CONSENT NOT CONSENT? If a police officer says. Consent to warrantless entry must be voluntary and not the result of duress or c oercion. The general rule is that unreasonable searches and seizures are banned. One s awareness of his or her right to refuse consent to warrantless entry is rele vant to the issue of voluntariness of alleged content. coercion and threatenin g. Coercive or intimidating behavior supp orts a reasonable belief that compliance is compelled. But the second part of the rule is the most important in this context. All warrantless s earches are presumptively unreasonable. If a social worker says. Contrary to the assumption of hundreds of social workers. and governments th at employed them settled this civil rights case for $150. Upon remand for the dam ages phase of the trial.

No wa rrant shall be issued but on probable cause. 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. Anonymous tips are never prob able cause. Anonymous pho ne calls cannot stand the test of probable cause as defined within the 14th Amen dment and would fail in court on appeal. The Fourth Amen dment itself spells out the evidence required for a warrant or entry order. omnipresent teacher. A quick verification of the relationship can be made in a variety of ways and once verified. Wisconsin. In H. In a government of laws. Little children can be traumatized by investigations in ways that are unintended by the social worker. 277 U. existence of government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law s crupulously.R.S. State Department of Human Resources. disputes on the Little League field. the warrant will not survive a judicial challenge in the higher courts. 2d 477 (Ala. nosey in dividuals who are attempting to impose their views on others are turned into mal iciously false allegations breathed into a hotline. Griffin v. If the government beco mes a law-breaker. CP S 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. Our government is the potent. App. If the cour ts allow states and their agencies to rule by feelings and not law. It allows those individuals to have a safe haven to file fraudulent reports and CPS aids and abets in this violation of fu ndamental rights. we become a nation without law that makes decisions based on subjectivity and objectivity. The social worker(s) would lose their qu alified immunity for their deprivation of rights and can be sued. neighborhood squabble s. the court held that an anonymous tip standing alone never amounts to probable cause. child custody battles. The misuse of anonymous tips is well known. The evidence must also pass a test of reliability that our justice sys tem calls probable cause. It is very dangerous when governmental officials are allowed to have unfettered ac cess to a citizen s home. Personal vendettas. U. 612 So. v. It invites anarchy.S. It is also very dangerous to allow CPS to violate the con frontation clause in the 6th Amendment were CPS hides. the informant.S. Anonymous phone calls fail the second part of the two-prong requirem ent of exigent circumstances and probable cause for a warrant or order. revenge. It invites every man to become a law unto himself. for example. The Calabretta court held the same thing. it breeds contempt for the law. Ju stice Brandeis. All citizens have the right to know their accuser/witness in or der to preserve the sanctity of the rule of law and that the Constitution is the . If a court issues a warrant based on an uncorroborated anonymous tip. 1992).Since the report has been received over the telephone. 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. v. This does not seem t o a child to be a proper invasion of their person quite different. For good or ill. not by feelings. However. Decency. 483 U. conceals and covers up th e accuser/witness who makes the report. 438 (1928). which have faced the issue directly. Ct. f rom an examination by a doctor when their mother is present and cooperating. Crime is contagious. 868 (1987). as ha ve numerous other decisions. would satisfy the legal test of reliability. i t teaches the whole people by example. Many social wor kers and Child Protection Services ( CPS ) lose their cases in court because their e ntry into homes was in violation of the parents civil rights because the evidenc e in their possession did not satisfy the standard of probable cause. which is necessary to establish pro bable cause. it is possible that the t ipster is an imposter and not the child s grandmother. It is not enough to have information that the children are in some form of serio us danger. security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subj ect to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. We the people of the United States are ruled by law. Children are not well served if they are subjected to investigations base on fal se allegations. Olmstead.

Distri ct Judge Jack Weinsein ruled on Nicholson v. is tantamount to pouring sal t on an open wound. and defining witnessing domestic violence by children as maltreatment or e motional neglect is a mistake. Pelcovitz stated that taking a child whose greatest fear is separ ation from his or her mother and in the name of protecting that child [by] forcing on them. SECTION 5 IS IT ILLEGAL AND AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRACTICE FOR CPS TO REMOVE CHILDREN SOLELY BECAUSE THEY SAW A PARENT WAS A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE? Yes it is illegal and an unconstitutional practice to remove children which resul ishing the children and the non-offending parent as stated. Dr. A great concern [regarding] how increased awareness of children s exposure [to domestic violence] and associated problems is being us ed. . several leading national experts testified on the impact on chi witnessing domestic violence. short periods of parental a bsence may seem longer than for older children. the child is very anxious and protests vigorously and angrily . Eastern District of New York. U. 139 at 5. 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.: 00-cv-2229. Williams. Case No.supreme law of the land. Tr. District Court. Thus. the suit challenged the practice of New York s City s Administration for Children s Servi ces of removing the children of battered mothers solely because the children saw their mothers being beaten by husbands or boyfriends. Stark (Yale New Haven Hospital researcher) asserted that if a ch ild is placed in foster care as a result of domestic violence in the home. 141b.S. looking. their worst nightmare. Ex. Concerned about the risk adult domestic violence poses for children. some chi ld protection agencies in the United States appear to be defining exposure to do mestic violence as a form of child Defining witnessing as maltreatment is a mistak e. For those children who are in homes where there is domestic violence. and the impact on children of being removed from t he non-offending parent. though still hyper vigilant. Dr. He described the typical response of a child separated from his pa rent: When a young child is separated from a parent unwillingly. wa iting. Ex. Views of Experts on Effects of Domestic Violence on Chil dren. 163 at 866. Wolf testified that disruptions in the parent-child relationship might provo ke fear and anxiety in a child and diminish his or her sense of stability and se lf. EFFECTS OF REMOVALS ON CHILDREN AND NON-OFFENDING PARENT. Doing so ignores the fact that large numbers of children in these studies show ed no negative development problems and some showed evidence of strong coping ab ilities. 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. 565-67. disruption of that bond can be even more traumatic than situations where this is no domest ic violence. Tr 565-65.S. Then he falls into a sense of despair. Tr. During the trial. he or she shows distress At first. what is in effect. for younger ch ildren whose sense of time is less keenly developed. ARE PARENTS GUILTY OF MALTREATMENT OR EMOTIONAL NEGLECT IF THE CHILD WITNESSES DOMESTIC VIOLENCE? Not according to Judge Weistein s ruling and to the leading national experts. Judge Weistein ruled that the practice is unconstitutional and he ordered it stopped. See also Ex. Dr. Automatically defining witnessing as maltreatment may also ignore batter ed mother s efforts to develop safe environments for their children and themselves . 1562-63. In a landmark class a ction suit in the U.

Another serious implication of removal is that it introduces children to the fos
ter 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 pre
sence 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 c
are placements can disrupt the child s contact with community, school and siblings
. Ex. 122 at 8.
SECTION 6
DO CHILDREN HAVE LEGAL STANDING TO SUE CPS FOR THEIR ILLEGAL ABDUCTION FROM THEI
R HOME AND VIOLATING THEIR 4TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS?
Yes they do, children have standing to sue for their removal after they reach th
e 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 hea
lth care professionals and government officials. Thomason v. Scan Volunteer Servi
ces, 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. Kno
w 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 ne
glect. It is a criminal matter disguised as a civil matter. Police do not get invo
lved in civil matters if it truly is one. You will regret letting them in your ho
me and speaking with them like the thousands of other parents who have gone thro
ugh this. When you ask a friend, family member or someone at work what to do, the
y will tell you if you agree to services, CPS will leave you alone or you can ge
t 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 c
hildren s records are protected by FERPA and HIPAA regarding your children s educati
onal and medical records. They need a lawful warrant like the police under the war
rant clause to seize any records. If your child s school records contain medical rec
ords, 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 v
iolated the law. You need to file a HIPAA complaint on the sender and the receive
r. (See PDF version http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/howtofileprivacy.pdf and a Microsoft W
ord 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 warr
ant to make you do anything. CPS has no power; do not agree to a drug screen or a
psychological evaluation.

SECTION 7
SUMMARY OF FAMILY RIGHTS (FAMILY ASSOCIATION)
The state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when a fit parent is avai
lable. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).
A child has a constitutionally protected interest in the companionship and socie
ty of his or her parent. Ward v. San Jose (9th Cir. 1992)
Children have standing to sue for their removal after they reach the age of majo
rity. Children have a constitutional right to live with their parents without gov
ernment interference. Brokaw v. Mercer County (7th Cir. 2000)
The private, fundamental liberty interest involved in retaining custody of one s c
hild and the integrity of one s family is of the greatest importance. Weller v. Dep
t. of Social Services for Baltimore (4th Cir. 1990)
A state employee who withholds a child from her family may infringe on the famil
y s liberty of familial association. Social workers can not deliberately remove chi
ldren from their parents and place them with foster caregivers when the official
s reasonably should have known such an action would cause harm to the child s ment
al 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. Wash
ington 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 importa
nce 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)
SECTION 8
WARRANTLESS ENTRY
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 circu
mstance 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 sei
zure in a suspected child abuse case absent exigent circumstances. Defendants mus
t 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 exten
ds 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 t
he property of our citizens continues and is reflected in knock and announce req
uirements. United States v. Becker, 929 F.2d 9th Cir.1991)
Making false statements to obtain a warrant, when the false statements were nece
ssary to the finding of probable cause on which the warrant was based, violates
the Fourth Amendment s warrant requirement. The Warrant Clause contemplates that th
e warrant applicant be truthful: no warrant shall issue, but on probable cause, s
upported by oath or affirmation. Deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for th
e truth violates the Warrant Clause. An officer who obtains a warrant through mat
erial false statements which result in an unconstitutional seizure may be held l
iable personally for his actions under 1983. This warrant application is material
ly 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 limit
ing 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 no
t 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 ide
ntify themselves to the subject of a search, absent exigent circumstances. Aponte
Matos v. Toledo Davilla (1st Cir. 1998)
SECTION 9
DUE PROCESS
Child s four-month separation from his parents could be challenged under substanti
ve 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 Se
rvices (10th Cir. 1992)
When the state places a child into state-regulated foster care, the state has du
ties and the failure to perform such duties may create liability under
1983. Liab
ility may attach when the state has taken custody of a child, regardless of whet
her the child came to stay with a family on his own which was not an officially
approved foster family. Nicini v. Morra (3rd Cir. 2000)
A social worker who received a telephone accusation of abuse and threatened to r
emove 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 a
n 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 becaus
e the intentional use of fraudulent evidence into the procedures used by the sta
te denied them the fight to fundamentally fair procedures before having their ch
ild removed, a right included in Procedural Due Process. Morris v. Dearborne (5th
Cir. 1999)
When the state deprives parents and children of their right to familial integrit
y, 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. Morg

Hurlman v. (5th Cir. Wallis v. of Public Welfare. 1999) Plaintiff s clearly established right to meaningful access to the courts would be violated by suppression of evidence and failure to report evidence. absent an emergency. Defendants must have rea son to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy and that the intrusion is reasonably necessary to alleviate the threat. 1991) Mother had a clearly established right to an adequate. Dauphin County Soc ial Services. Parental consent is required to take childr en for medical exams. Chrissy v. Whisman V. City of Baton Rouge. (10th Cir. Where polic e were not informed of any abuse of the child prior to arriving at caretaker s hom e and found no evidence of abuse while there. Ri nehart. (7th Cir. Rubin.an. Malik v. (2nd Cir. Procurement of an order to sei ze a child through distortion. Norfleet v. Ram v. 1989) Defendants could not lawfully seize a child without a warrant or the existence o f probable cause to believe the child was in imminent danger of harm. 1990) When the state places a child in a foster home it has an obligation to provide a dequate medical care. Arkansas Dept. 1997) Absent extraordinary circumstances. (5th Cir. Good v. Spencer. and supervision. (7th Cir. A 17-day period prior to the hearing was not prompt hearing. seizure of the child was not objec tively reasonable and violated the clearly established Fourth Amendment rights o f the child. misrepresentation and/or omission is a violation of the Forth Amendment. prompt post-deprivation h earing. 1991) Police officer and social worker may not conduct a warrantless search or seizure in a suspected abuse case absent exigent circumstances. Seizure is unconstitutional without court order or exigent circumstances. a parent has a liberty interest in familial association and privacy that cannot be violated without adequate pre-deprivation procedures. Searches and seizures in invest igation of a child neglect or child abuse case at a home are governed by the sam e principles as other searches and seizures at a home. (9th Cir 1999) Child removals are seizures under the Fourth Amendment. Parents may assert their children s Fourth Amendment claim on behalf of their children as well as asserting their own Fourteenth Amendment claim. of Human Services. Wooley v. (8th Cir. 2000) Defendant should ve investigated further prior to ordering seizure of children bas ed on information he had overheard. 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.Arapahoe Cty. protection. of Social Services. a seizure of a person is a situation in whic . Court order obtained based on know ingly false information violates Fourth Amendment. Dept. or an overriding order from the court after parents have b een heard. Mi ssissippi Dept. 2000) For purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Brokaw v. (8th Cir. An ex parte hearing based on misrepresentation and omission does not constitute notice and an opportunity to be heard. 1997) SECTION 10 SEIZURES (CHILD REMOVALS) Police officers or social workers may not pick up a child without an investigation or court order. Rice. Mercer County. (9th Cir. (3rd Cir.

Where a statute authorizes official cond uct which is patently violation of fundamental constitutional principles. Grossman v.S. Biggers.S. California v. (9th Cir. (S. an off icer who enforces that statute is not entitled to qualified immunity. 457 U.h a reasonable person would feel that he is not free to leave. (10th Cir. Harlow v. 621 (1991) Where the standard for a seizure or search is probable cause.S . This requirement c annot 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. Dept. 1983 if they are named in their official and individu al capacity . 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 offi cer spoke with the social worker prior to social worker s conversation with the ma gistrate and there was evidence that described the collaborative worker of the t wo defendants in creating a plan of action to deal with the situation. a police off icer is not entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity based on good f aith since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his or her conduct. State law providing immunity from suit for child abuse investigators has no appl ication to suits under 1983. Malik v. (1994) Social workers were not entitled to absolute immunity for pleadings filed to obt ain a pick-up order for temporary custody prior to formal petition being filed. 1991) State law cannot provide immunity from suit for Federal civil rights violations. Officer s acts were investigative and involved more that merely carrying out a judicial order. Yabarra v. Spencer. Illinois. Hafer v. Melo. (5th Cir. Persons may not be seized without a court order or being pl aced under arrest. 499 U. Wallis v. 1st Cir. 800. 1998) SECTION 11 IMMUNITY Social workers (and other government employees) may be sued for deprivation of c ivil rights under 42 U. 85 (1979) An officer who obtains a warrant through material false statements which result in an unconstitutional seizure may be held liable personally for his actions und er 1983. 44 U. or the official violated clearly e or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would v. Toledo Davilla. Fitzgerald. (5th Cir. of Social Services. Hodari. 818 (1982) Immunity is defeated s intention to cause stablished statutory have known. then there must be particularized information with respect to a specific person. S ocial workers were not entitled to absolute immunity where department policy was . McCord if the official took the complained of action with maliciou a deprivation of rights. 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 h er charge against the plaintiff. 1999) Individuals aren t immune for the results of their official conduct simply because they were enforcing policies or orders. Aponte Matos v. Arapahoe Cty. and also either a ctually yields to a show of authority from police or social workers or is physic ally touched by police. (9th Cir.C. 1999) If the law was clearly established at the time the action occurred.S. City of Portland.Ct. Maggio. Young v.

in this Court s decisions intim ates that there is any fundamental privacy right implicit in the concept of orde red liberty to watch obscene movies and places of public accommodation. the family. and acts of deliberate falsity or reckless disregard of the truth are no t entitled to qualified immunity.H through Murph y v. Meyer v.for social workers to report findings of neglect or abuse to other authorities for further investigation or initiation of court proceedings. (7th Cir. Rinehart. (10 Cir. 1986) Defendants were not entitled to prosecutorial immunity where complaint was based on failure to investigate. Pierce v. 684-686 (1977) Once again. Social workers inve stigating claims of child abuse are entitled only to qualified immunity. (2nd Cir. procreation. Assistin g in the use of information known to be false to further an investigation is not subject to absolute immunity. marriage. Hurlman v. 431 US 678. Nebraska . 1997) Case worker who intentionally or recklessly withheld potentially exculpatory inf ormation from an adjudicated delinquent or from the court itself was not entitle d to qualified immunity. 413 US 49. nothing. only qualified immunity. . Briggs. and an inordinate delay in fi ling court proceedings. (1st Cir. and child rearing . . This privacy right enc ompasses and protects the personal intimacies of the home. [emphasi s supplied] Carey v. to claim that he caused plaintiff to be unlawfully arrested by presenting judge wi th an affidavit that failed to establish probable cause. the Court includes the right of parents in the area of child rearing . the Court includes the right of parents to rear children among rig hts deemed fundamental. however. Society of Sisters. Whisman v. Snell v. . Slaton. detaining minor child. (8th Cir. 1990) Police officer is not entitled to absolute immunity. No qualified immunity is available for incorpor ating allegations into the report or application where official had no reasonabl e basis to assume the allegations were true at the time the document was prepare d. K. Morgan. Dauphin County Social Services. 65 (1973) In this case. Our prior decisions recognizing a right to privacy guarante ed by the 14th Amendment included only personal rights that can be deemed fundam ental or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty . . Social workers are not entitled to qualified immun ity on claims they deceived judicial officers in obtaining a custody order or de liberately or recklessly incorporated known falsehoods into their reports. Rice. Germany v. Vance.Ct. (3rd Cir 1989) Social workers were not entitled to absolute immunity where no court order comma nded them to place plaintiff with particular foster caregivers. Tunnel. . motherhood. Population Services International. . crimi nal complaints and applications. 1991) SECTION 12 DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT UPHOLDING PARENTAL RIGHTS AS FUNDAMENTAL Paris Adult Theater v. . cf . Malley v. Use of information known to be false is not reas onable. . 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 info rmation he had overheard. Good v. because such actions did not aid in the presentation of a case to the juvenile court. S. 1991) Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity for conducting warrantless se arch of home during a child abuse investigation where exigent circumstances were not present.

. Society of Sisters . 321 US 158 (1944). the Cour t relied on Meyer . . and must be narrowly drawn to express on ly those interests. 262 US 390 (1923) . This right of personal privacy includes the interest and independence in making certain kinds of important decisions . . Nebraska. [emphasis supplied] Maher v. But neither case denied to a state the policy choice of en couraging the preferred course of action … Pierce casts no shadow over a state s pow er to favor public education by funding it a policy choice pursued in some State s for more than a century … Indeed in Norwood v. 462. nor must a state satisfy the compelling interest t est if it chooses not to give private schools state aid. . . Nebraska. The Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act simply reaffirms the right of parents to choose private edu cation as fundamental. 268 US 510 (1925). (1973) . noting t hat It is one thing to say that a state may not prohibit the maintenance of priva te 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 req uired to show a compelling interest for its policy choice to favor a normal chil dbirth anymore than a state must so justify its election to fund public. Although the Constitution do es not explicitly mention any right of privacy. req uiring an application of the compelling interest test. Society of Sisters. the parent s right to choose private rather than pu blic school education. but it does not make the right to receive public funds a . may at some point become sufficiently compelling to sust ain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision . . the Court has clearly indicated that private schools do not have a fu ndamental right to state aid.and education to be a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. . The Court held that the law unr easonably interfered with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upb ringing and education of the children under their control … Both cases invalidated substantial restrictions of constitutionally protected li berty interests: in Meyer. . family relationships. where decisions as fundamental as whether to bear or beget a child is involved. . certai n state interests . While the outer limits of t his aspect of privacy have not been marked by the Court. . In M eyer v. . the Court held that the teacher s right thus to teach and th e right of parents to engage in so to instruct their children were within the li berty of the 14th Amendment . . and child rearing and education. Roe. . Massachusetts. . Compelling is. of course. it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interfe rence are personal decisions relating to marriage . we explicitly rejected the argument that Pierce established a right of private or parochial schools to share with the public schools in state largesse. the Court has recognized that on e aspect of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendmen t is a right of personal privacy or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of priv acy . 413 US 455. . . Meyer v. the key word. in Pierce. [emphasis supplied] The Court continued by explaining that these rights are not absolute and. 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 interfe rence with a protected activity and state encouragement of an alternative activi ty consonant with legislative policy … This distinction is implicit in two cases c ited in Roe in support of the pregnant woman s right under the 14th Amendment. Pr ince v. Harrison. regulations imposing a burden on it may be justifi ed only by a compelling state interest. . . [emphasis supplied] Although the Maher decision unquestionably recognizes parents rights as fundament al rights. Pierc e v. reasoning that the 14th Amendment s concept of liberty exc ludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. the parent s right to have his child taught a particula r foreign language. 432 US 464. but not private education. In Pierce v.

would have been different if the children there had ann ounced or preference to go to a public. Soci ety of Sisters. 442 US 584. More important. does not in any way promote or strengthen the concept of educational vouchers. 510. Commentaries on American L aw 190. The Supreme Court reversed this decision upholding the legal presump tion that parents act in their children s best interest. historically it has been recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their ch ildren. . to recognize and prepare [their children] for additional obligations. 535 (1925) … [other citations omitted] . or because it involves risks does not automa tically transfer power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state. however. coupled with the high duty. Planne d Parenthood of Central Missouri v.fundamental right. [emphasis supplied] Parental rights are clearly upheld in this decision recognizing the rights of pa rents to make health decisions for their children. That some parents may at times be acting against the interests of their children … creates a basis for caution. sweeps too broadly. The lower Court had ruled that Georgia s statutory scheme of all owing 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 pro cess rights. The law s concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity. 268 U. Our cases have consistently followed that course. and capacity for judgment required for making lif e s difficult decisions. Parents can and must make those judgment s … we cannot assume that the result in Meyer v. 602-606 (1979). even in adolescence. Appellees argument. we have recognized that a state is not without constitutional contr ol over parental discretion in dealing with children when their physical or ment al health is jeopardized (See Wisconsin v. therefore. Danforth. rather that a church school. experience. adversary. but it is hardly a reaso n to discard wholesale those pages of human experience that teach that parents g enerally do act in the child s best interest … The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abus e and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition. experience and reality may rebu t what the law accepts as a starting point. The PRRA. including a formal. Moreo ver. supra. supra. si mply are not able to make sound judgments concerning many decisions. The fact tha t a child may balk at hospitalization or complain about a parental refusal to pr . and Pierce v. This case involves parent s rights to make medical decisions regarding their child ren s mental health. The Court ruled: Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of th e family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Blackstone. Kent. Prince v. So ciety of Sisters. the incidence of child neglect and a buse cases attests to this. Pierce v. Nebraska. As with so many other legal presumptions. Parham v. Commentaries 447. 1 W.. the Court recently declared unconstitutional a state statute that granted p arents an absolute veto over a minor child s decisions to have an abortion.R. Appellees urged that these precedents limiting the traditional rights of parents. Massachusetts). Simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child. appendectomy. J. our constitutional system long ago rejec ted any notion that a child is the mere creature of the State and. if viewed in t he context of a liberty interest of the child and the likelihood of parental abu se. Most children.S. including t heir need for medical care or treatment. The same characterizations can be made for a tonsillectomy. pre-admission hearing. asserted that parents generally have the right. 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. The Court continues by explain ing the balancing that must take place: Nonetheless. on the contrary . . 2 J. Yoder. or other medical procedure. 428 US 52 (1976).

[emphasis supplied] Therefore. Allocation of Child Medical Care Decision Making Authority: A Suggested In terest Analyses. or financial relationship with the child. The U. Central among these protected liberties i s an individual s freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family lif e … Roe … Griswold … Pierce v. Society of Sisters … Meyer v. however. The Court indicated a co mpelling interest test must be applied. Robertson. 62 Va LR ev 285. [emphasis supplied] Lehr v. The absence of dispute reflected this Court s histori cal recognition that freedom of personal choice in matters of family life is a f undamental liberty interest protected by the 14th Amendment … Pierce v. Nebraska. and ma nagement of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been mod el parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the state … When the s tate moves to destroy weakened familial bonds.S. Supreme Court. 86 Yale LJ 645. Neither state officials nor federal Courts are equipped to review such parental decisions. must be supported by a compelling sta te interest. The Supreme Court stated: In some c ases. 463 US 248. 461 (198 3) This case includes. A parent s right must be protected and not simply tra nsferred to some state agency. the parental rights guaranteed under Pierce and Meyer. [emphasis supplied] Santosky v..S . the U. The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care. .ovide cosmetic surgery does not diminish the parent s authority to decide what is best for the child (See generally Goldstein. however. 753 (1982) This case involved the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court affirmin g the application of the preponderance of the evidence standard as proper and co nstitutional in ruling that the parent s rights are permanently terminated. personal. i t was not disputed that state intervention to terminate the relationship between a parent and a child must be accomplished by procedures meeting the requisites o f the Due Process Clause . this Court has held that the federal constitution supersedes stat . Nebraska … But restrictive st ate regulation of the right to choose abortion as with other fundamental rights subject to searching judicial examination. 37 (1981)]. 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. Medical Case for the Child at Risk: on State Supervention of Parental Autonomy. 462 US 416. made it clear that parents rights as outli ned in Pierce and Meyer are fundamental and specially protected under the Fourte enth Amendment. 257-258 (1983) In this case. City of Akron v. 452 US 18. custody. Department of Social Services. in a long list of protected liberties and fundamental rights . vacated the lower Court decision. holding that due pro cess as required under the 14th Amendment in this case required proof by clear a nd convincing evidence rather than merely a preponderance of the evidence. Society of Sisters … Meyer v. . A parent s authority to decide what i s best for the child in the areas of medical treatment cannot be diminished simp ly because a child disagrees. The Court began by quoting another Supreme Court case: In Lassiter [Lassiter v. it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures. 664-668 (1977). Ben nett. Th e natural father was challenging an adoption. in reaching their decision. 455 US 745. The Court. 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 deci sions. 308 (1976). Akron Center for Reproductive Health Inc. including their need for medical care. Kramer.

e law and provides even greater protection for certain formal family relationshi
ps. 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 t
he responsibilities they have assumed. Thus, the liberty of parents to control th
e education of their children that was vindicated in Meyer v. Nebraska … and Pierc
e v. Society of Sisters … was described as a right coupled with the high duty to re
cognize and prepare the child for additional obligations … The linkage between pare
ntal duty and parental right was stressed again in Prince v. Massachusetts … The C
ourt declared it a cardinal principle that the custody, care and nurture of the c
hild reside first in the parents whose primary function and freedom include prep
aration 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 famil
y unit is an interest in liberty entitled to Constitutional protection … State inte
rvention to terminate such a relationship … must be accomplished by procedures mee
ting the requisites of the Due Process Clause Santosky v. Kramer … [emphasis suppli
ed]
It is clear by the above case that parental rights are to be treated as fundamen
tal and cannot be taken away without meeting the constitutional requirement of d
ue process.
Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 US 537
(1987)
In this case, a Californian civil rights statute was held not to violate the Fir
st Amendment by requiring an all male non-profit club to admit women to membersh
ip. The Court concluded that parents rights in child rearing and education are inc
luded 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 int
imate or private relationships is a fundamental element of liberty protected by
the Bill of Rights … the intimate relationships to which we have accorded Constitu
tional protection include marriage … the begetting and bearing of children, child
rearing and education. Pierce v. Society of Sisters … [emphasis supplied]
Michael H. v. Gerald, 491 U.S. 110 (1989)
In 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 e
xtends beyond freedom from physical restraint. See, e.g. Pierce v. Society of Sis
ters … Meyer v. Nebraska … In an attempt to limit and guide interpretation of the Cl
ause, we have insisted not merely that the interest denominated as a liberty be fun
damental (a concept that, in isolation, is hard to objectify), but also that it b
e 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 con
science 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.
Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
One of the more recent decisions which upholds the right of parents is Employmen
t Division of Oregon v. Smith, which involved two Indians who were fired from a
private drug rehabilitation organization because they ingested peyote, a hallucino
genic drug as part of their religious beliefs. When they sought unemployment comp
ensation, they were denied because they were discharged for misconduct.
The 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 dru

gs. Of course, as expected, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the case and found th
at the First Amendment did not protect drug use. So what does the case have to do
with parental rights?
After the Court ruled against the Indians, it then analyzed the application of t
he Free Exercise Clause generally. The Court wrongly decided to throw out the Fre
e 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 t
heir children is still a fundamental right. The Court declared that the compelling
interest test is still applicable, not to the Free Exercise Clause alone:
[B]ut the Free Exercise Clause in conjunction with other constitutional protecti
ons 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]
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 previ
ous 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 inter
ests of parenthood are combined with a free exercise claim … more than merely a re
asonable relationship to some purpose within the competency of the State is requ
ired 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 re
asonable, 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 r
estrictive means.
Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990)
In 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.
The family has a privacy interest in the upbringing and education of children an
d the intimacies of the marital relationship which is protected by the Constitut
ion against undue state interference. See Wisconsin v Yoder, 7 406 US 205 … The stat
ist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all ca
ses because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tra
dition. In other words, under this precedent, parents rights to control the educat
ion of their children is considered a constitutionally protected right which requi
res the application of the compelling interest test. The Court in Smith quoted it
s 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 inter
ests of parenthood are combined with a free exercise claim … more than merely a rea
sonable relationship to some purpose within the competency of the State is requi
red to sustain the validity of the State s requirement under the First Amendment. 4
06 U.S., at 233.20 [emphasis supplied]
Instead of merely showing that a regulation conflicting with parents

rights is re

asonable, 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 r
estrictive means.
Parham, 442 US, at 603, [other citations omitted]. We have long held that there e
xists a private realm of family life which the state cannot enter. Prince v Massac
husetts …
A natural parent who has demonstrated sufficient commitment to his or her childr
en is thereafter entitled to raise the children free from undue state interferen
ce. As Justice White explained in his opinion of the Court in Stanley v Illinois,
405 US 645 (1972) [other cites omitted]:
The court has frequently emphasized the importance of the family. The rights to co
nceive and to raise one s children have been deemed essential, Meyer v Nebraska, … basi
c civil rights of man, Skinner v Oklahoma, 316 US 535, 541 (1942), and [r]ights fa
r more precious … than property rights, May v Anderson, 345 US 528, 533 (1953) … The i
ntegrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of th
e Fourteenth Amendment, Meyer v Nebraska, supra. [emphasis supplied]
The Court leaves no room for doubt as to the importance and protection of the ri
ghts 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 interpre
tation has consistently recognized that the parents claim to authority in their o
wn household to direct the rearing of their children is basic in the structure o
f 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 prote
cted (Wisconsin v. Yoder, Stanley v. Illinois, Meyer v. Nebraska) …
It is cardinal w
ith us that the custody, care, and nurture of the child reside first in the pare
nts, whose primary function and freedom includes preparation for obligations the
state can neither supply, nor hinder. [Quoting Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 US 1
58, 166, (1944)]. See also Parham v. J.R.; Pierce v. Society of Sisters … We have re
cognized that parents have an important guiding role to play in the upbringing of
their children, Bellotti II, 443 US 633-639 … which presumptively includes counsel
ing them on important decisions.
This Court clearly upholds the parent s right to know in the area of minor childre
n making medical decisions.
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 132 L.Ed.2d 564, 115 S.Ct. 2386 (1995)
In 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 r
ights accorded citizens, and in lack thereof, parents and guardians possess and
exercise those rights and authorities in the child s best interest:
Traditionally at common law, and still today, unemancipated minors lack some of
the most fundamental rights of self-determination including even the right of libe
rty 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 guardian
s. See Am Jur 2d, Parent and Child
10 (1987).
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)

(a) The Confrontation Clause’s text does not alone resolve this case. 6. the principal evil at which the Clause was directed was the civil-law mo de of criminal procedure.S. that right do es not bar admission of an unavailable witness’s statement against a criminal defe ndant if the statement bears “adequate ‘indicia of reliability. And the “right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him. 92 S.g. the Framers would not have allowed admission of testimonial statements of a wit ness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify and the de fendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. custody. this decision means that the government may not infringe p arents’ right to direct the education and upbringing of their children unless it c an show that it is using the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling gov ernmental interest. Petitioner argued that admitting the evidence would violate his Sixth Amendment right to be “confronted w ith the witnesses against him. Pp. 2004 certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington Petitioner was tried for assault and attempted murder. (b) This Court’s decisions have generally remained faithful to the Confrontation C lause’s original meaning. supra. Roberts. Ct. 237. The State sought to introd uce a recorded statement that petitioner’s wife Sylvia had made during police inte rrogation. we have recognized the fundamenta l right of parents to make decisions concerning the care. The State Supreme Court upheld the conviction.” Wash.10. so this Cour t turns to the Clause’s historical background. S. Mattox. 21-23. Ed. 1526 (1972) (“The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tr adition of parental concern for the nurture and this case clearly upholds parent al rights. 32 L. 406 U. Yoder. Crawford v.S. admi tting only those exceptions established at the time of the founding.” Id. 2003 Decided March 8. is m ost naturally read as a reference to the common-law right of confrontation. Pp.” Under Ohio v. 02-9410. 2d 15. . United States.. See.e.160(3). 243. 448 U. First. Supreme Court ruled that the Washingto n statute “unconstitutionally interferes with the fundamental right of parents to rear their children. where testimonial statements are at issue. e. deeming t he statement reliable because it was nearly identical to. petitioner’s own statement to the police. S. as evidence that the stabbing was not in self-defense. Second. the only indicium of reliability s ufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is confrontation. 205. 56. In essence. 5-33. in that both were ambiguous as to whet her the victim had drawn a weapon before petitioner assaulted him. i.” The Court went on to examine its treatment of parental right s in previous cases: In subsequent cases also. The U. 232.’ ” a test met when the e vidence either falls within a “firmly rooted hearsay exception” or bears “particulariz ed guarantees of trustworthiness.In this case.. particularly the use of ex parte examinations as evide nce against the accused. See Mattox v . Rev. whether or not there has been any change of circumstan ces. 5-21. Argued November 10. and in terrogations by law enforcement officers fall squarely within that class.” Amdt. Held: The State’s use of Sylvia’s statement violated the Confrontation Clause becaus e. 156 U. and control o f their children Wisconsin v. interlocked with . Sylvia did not testify at trial because of Washington’s marital privilege. Code 26. the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion on paren tal liberty. The case involved a Washington State statute which provided that a “co urt may order visitation rights for any person when visitation may serve the bes t interests of the child. That history supports two principles . English authorities an d early state cases indicate that this was the common law at the time of the fou nding. The trial court admitted the stateme nt on the latter ground. Pp. Washington No. at 66. The Clause’s primary object is testimonial hearsay..

Ginsburg. joined. THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE A PARENT Below are excerpts of case law from state appellate and federal district courts and up to the U.. (f) The instant case is a self-contained demonstration of Roberts’ unpredictable a nd inconsistent application. the same cannot be said of the rationales of this Court’s more recent decisions. for even minimal periods of time. no less than the state courts. from one perspective or an other. However. Roberts allows a jury to hear evidence. Scalia. joined. Jaffree. J. persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedu . Doe v. Kennedy. parents retain vital interest in prevent irretrievable destruction of their family life. lacks au thority to replace it with one of its own devising. 118 US 356. Th e Constitution prescribes the procedure for determining the reliability of testi mony in criminal trials. The several states have no greater power to restrain individual freedoms protected First Amendment than does the Congress of the United States. Soute r. J. 9. J. 147 Wash. 25-27. custody and nurture of their children is of s uch character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental princ iples of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and politica l institutions. at 66. 441 F Supp 1247. based on a mere judicial d etermination of reliability. (1886). the absolute Constitutional right of parents to actually BE parents to th eir children. It also reveals Roberts’ failure to interpret the Cons titution in a way that secures its intended constraint on judicial discretion. untested by the adversary process. Elrod v. if anything. filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. (1976). 427 US 347. Yick Wo v. 24-25. Whether a statement is deemed reliable dep ends on which factors a judge considers and how much weight he accords each of t hem.. (e) Roberts’ framework is unpredictable. C. delivered the opinion of the Court. and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendmen t (First) and Amendments 5. o f Michigan. D. (1985). 105 S Ct 2479..C. Wallace v. Irwin. Pp. in which O’Connor. the unpardonable vice of the Roberts test is its demonstrated capac ity to admit core testimonial statements that the Confrontation Clause plainly m eant to exclude. Supreme Court. 2d 424. reversed and remanded. 27-30. (1985). and 14. and Breyer. U. supra. The Roberts test departs from historical pr inciples because it admits statements consisting of ex parte testimony upon a me re reliability finding. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute. 3d 656. unquestionably itutes irreparable injury. Pp. 54 P. they m ay be curtailed only by interests of vital importance. Thomas. The rights of parents to the care. JJ. See Roberts. Rehnquist.. 472 US 38. 96 S Ct 2673. Even when blood relationships are strained. Burns. Loss of First Amendment Freedoms.S. 30-32.S. the burden of proving whi ch rests on their government. Law and court procedures that are “fair on their faces” but administered “with an ev a heavy hand” was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. and this Court. Pp. Pp. in which Stevens. (d) The Confrontation Clause commands that reliability be assessed in a particul ar manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination. Hopkins. all of which affirm.(c) However. thus replacing the constitutionally prescribed meth od of assessing reliability with a wholly foreign one.

Ninth. Maloney. 527 F Supp 538. care. custody. 405 US 645. DC.C. custody and management of his or h er children rises to a constitutionally secured right. (1923). Nebraska. Parent’s rights have been recognized as being “essential to the orderly pursuit of by free man. US Ct App 7th Cir WI. 345 US 528.ral protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family a ffairs. 73 S Ct 840.S. resident nor present.. and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of o children and. at 489. Regenold v. given the centrality of f amily life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility. 369 NE 2d 858. Bell v. Conn. 43 S Ct 625. Parent’s right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this ment 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. 843. . (1980). (1977). 356 F Supp 620. a state may not interfere with a parent’s custodial rights abs ent due process protections. D. 68 Ill 2d 419. protection. 651. absent a powerful countervailing interest. 435 US 963. we ha re us the elemental question whether a court of a state. even though temporarily. thus. supra 129 NJ Sup er. (1981 ). Kramer. The Court stressed. Supreme Court implied that “a (once) married father who is separated or di from a mother and is no longer living with his child” could not constitutionally b e treated differently from a currently married father living with his child. WI (1973). and C. Illin ois. Baby Fold. 324 A 2d 90. 455 US 745. In the Interest of Cooper. 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.” A parent’s interest in the companionship. Mabra v. Parents have a fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of lega ond with their children. City of Milwaukee.. “the parent-child relationship is an important interest that un y warrants deference and. who is deprived of custody of his or her child. appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598. “Separated as our issue is from that of the future interests of the children. a parent. (1982). Stanley v. 92 S Ct 1208. Langton v. where a mother is neith er domiciled. 102 S Ct 1388. (1972). IL. Santosky v. 746 F 2d 1205 . suffers thereby grievous loss and such l oss deserves extensive due process protection.” M ay v. A parent’s right to care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamenta o be guaranteed protection under the First. management and companionship of her minor children without having juri sdiction over her in person.S. In re: J. 533. Parent’s interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest which has receive siderable constitutional protection. Inc. (1952). Oklahoma (1980). Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this a dment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14. (1984). 617 P 2d 886. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the pa t-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections fo r individual liberty interests at stake. Anderson. Schmidt.” Meyer v. 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584. 262 US 390. Matter of Delaney. 621 P 2 d 437. Quil . may cut off her immediate right to the care. The U. or which is embodied in the conce pt of “liberty” as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Franz v. Stanton. 3 12 F 2d 257. 421 US 7. 649. and only the male for the mar ketplace and the world of ideas. US Ct App 7th Cir WI. as well as federal. Gross v. 104 S Ct 1879. (1978). love and affection of hi s children. 95 S Ct 1373. State Judges. and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law. 1376. Declaration of Independence –life.” Carson v. liberty and pursuit of happiness” phrase of the Declaration of Independence . reliable adult. 434 US 246. (1972). Reality of private biases and possible injury they might inflict were impermissible siderations under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.) Kelson v.D. responsible.S. 767 F 2d 651. Springfield. 466 US 429.S. MI App Div (1983). under Griswold can protect. 99 S Ct 1102. Walcott. liberty or property without due process of law nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws. City of Milwaukee. Ma tter of Gentry. Orr v. 707 F 2d 582. Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphas on conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. US Ct App (1983). 411 F Supp 645.loin v. A parent’s right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives fro act 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. 28 USCA 2411. liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution — No state can deprive any person of life. have the responsibility to respect and protect per s from violations of federal constitutional rights. No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as nd between parent and child. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (California) held that the parent-ch ationship is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. The parent-child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Cl of the 14th Amendment. US Ct App MN. cert denied 92 S Ct 2411. 255^Q56. S idoti. (1975). No longer is the female destined solely for the home and the rearing of the family. 440 US 268. Th ere is a family right to privacy which the state cannot invade or it becomes act . Elrod. (See.2d 532. A ch ild’s corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship deri ves from the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving. U. Pfizer v.. 1242^Q45. A parent’s right to the custody of his or her children is an element of “liberty” gu by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Constitution also protects “the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of p matters. 746 f 2d 1205. State of Illinois. the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care. thus. Palmore v. Orr. Legislative classifications which distributes benefits and burdens on the basis of g er carry the inherent risk of reinforcing stereotypes about the proper place of women and their need for special protection. 456 F. Bell v. company.” Federal Courts (and State Courts). Lord. DC E. VA (19 76). 595^Q599. (1979). 10. The U. 369 NW 2d 889. (1963). The state cannot be permitted to classify on the basis of sex. under th e “life. even statutes purportedly des igned to compensate for and ameliorate the effects of past discrimination agains t women must be carefully tailored. (1985). The United States Supreme Court held that the “old notion” that “generally it is t y responsibility to provide a home and its essentials” can no longer justify a sta tute that discriminates on the basis of gender. (1985). 98 S Ct 549. US Ct App 9th Cir. Stanton v.

of certain rights. Gre en. To acknowledge the protected status of the relationship as the majority does. 25 Wend. to consult the welfare.. Utah. 381 US 479. McKercher v. The Nint h Amendment acknowledged the prior existence of fundamental rights with it: “The e numeration in the Constitution. comfort and i nterest of such child in regulating its custody during the period of its minorit y. Bravo. was rec ently described by the Supreme Court as founded on the “Constitutional underpinnin g of … a recognition that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14t h Amendment includes not only the freedoms explicitly mentioned in the Bill of R ights. 35 Am. and is manifested in all animal life. 1910 In controversies affecting the custody of an infant. (1965). (1973). Thus. 666 F. is subject to scru tiny by federal judiciary within reach of due process and/or equal protection cl auses of 14th Amendment…Fourteenth Amendment applied to states through specific ri ghts 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. is to negate the rig ht completely. 35 L Ed 2d 147. and is entitled to the protection of that government. 103. Fantony. 648 P 2d 1364. and enforces. It is recognized that: ‘The moment a child is born it owes allegiance to the government of the country of it s birth. and only supervenes with its sovereign power when the necessities of the case require it.’ Mercein v. People. and parental a uthority itself is subordinate to this supreme power. and such right is scarcely less sa cred than the right to life and liberty. and the parent-child relationship are a mong those fundamental “liberty” interests protected by the Constitution. 93 S Ct 705. (1982). Article 1 1. App. and visitation rights. y et among mankind the necessity for government has forced the recognition of the rule that the perpetuity of the state is the first consideration. 454 A 2d 901. and yet deny protection under Title 42 USC 1983. which is the exclusive means of effecting that right.ionable for civil rights damages. 58 Pac. 13 Colo. the d ecision in Roe v. 410 US 113. Though nature gives to parents th e right to the custody of their own children. The right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a showing of f abandonment or substantial neglect is so fundamental and basic as to rank among the rights contained in this Amendment (Ninth) and Utah’s Constitution. Brennan v. 653. the state recognizes. This rule is based upon the theory that the state must perpetuate itself. that it . The experience of man has demonstrated that the best development of a young life is within the sacred precincts of a home. Brennan. adjudicate and administer all aspects of family law. including determinations of custodial. 122 A 2d 593.” The United States Supreme Court in a long line of decisions has recognized that matters involving marriage. and good citizenship is essential to that end. (N. Dec. Wade. State’s power to legislate. FROM THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT. the members of which are bound togeth er by ties entwined through ‘bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh . but also a freedom of personal choice in certain matters of marriage and family life. the right which nature gives to paren ts [48 Colo. the interest and welfare of the child is the primary and controlling question by which the court must be gu ided. Y. Griswold v. (1956). But as government should never interfere wit h the natural rights of man.P. 271.” The non-custodial divorced parent has no way to implement the consti tutionally protected right to maintain a parental relationship with his child ex cept through visitation. (1981). 406. In re U. 466] to the custody of their own children.2d 1328. procreation. Wise v. except only when it is essential for the good of so ciety. The rights of parents to parent-child relationships are recognized and upheld. And such governme nt is obligated by its duty of protection. shall not be construed to den y or disparage others retained by the people. Fa ntony v. (1982) .) 64. Connecticut. to visita tion.

C. T hus. The constitution is there for two primary reasons. and most attractive qualities of human nature. parental liberty i s to be protected by the highest standard of review: the compelling interest tes t. Accordingly these recurring facts in the experienc e of man resulted in a presumption establishing prima facie that parents are in every way qualified to have the care. 1983. 48 Colo. contingent. FOR HIS OR HER ACQUIESCENCE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEPRIVATION OR FOR CONDUCT THAT SHOWED A RECKLESS OR CALLOS INDIF FERENCE TO THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS? Section 1983 places liability on ANY person who “subjects. noblest. by natural law. and. Anyone who “causes” an y citizen to be subjected to a constitutional deprivation is also liable. Supreme Court has consistently protected parental rights.. OR CONTROL OF HIS OR HER SUBORDINATES. courage. that. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit offered a most cogent discussion of this issue in Arnold v. The req uisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct pers onal participation in the deprivation. 111 P.S. or when some exceptional circumstances appear which render such custody inimicable to the best interests of the child. Machines Corp. And the constitution is there to prohibit certain activity from government off icials and that prohibition does not apply to one type or kind of official but t o ANY government official whether it is the police. and cares for the child. or (2) actions or omissions that are n ot constitutional violations in themselves. 637 F. likewise. See 42 U. 1910) CONCLUSION The U. The Court decisively confirmed these rights in the recent case of Troxel v. 25-26. or causes to be subject ed” another to a constitutional deprivation. when a state is based a nd build upon such homes. including it among those rights deemed fundamental. and that their welfare and interests are best subserved under such control. 1981): A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right. As a fundamental right. but also by setting in motion a series of . within the meaning of section 1983. 21. the right c an never be lost or taken away so long as the parent properly nurtures. purest. participates in another’s affirmative acts. Moreover. Granville. ARE SUPERVISORS LIABLE FOR HIS OR HER CULPABLE ACTION OR INACTION IN THE SUPERVI SION. control. except w hen they are unsuitable persons to be entrusted with their care. parental rights have reached th eir highest level of protection in over 75 years. if he does an affirmative act. personal involvement in the alleged constitutiona l violation on the part of the defendant. the statutes of this state. 454 (C olo. and control of their own offsprin g. While the right of a parent to t he custody of its infant child is therefore. As can be seen from the cases described above. it is strong in patriotism. CPS or FBI. Mitchell. or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made…. by common law. 2d 1350 (9th Cir. Wilson v. so essential to good citizenship. which should serve to ma intain and protect parental rights for many years to come. t he natural parents are entitled to the custody of their minor children. and ed ucation.S.is in such homes and under such influences that the sweetest. in a sense. not the government from the peopl e. are best nurtured and grow to wholesome fruition. but foreseeably leads to a constitut ional violation. personal parti cipation is not the only predicate for section 1983 liability. they will both be continually harmed. This language sugge sts that there are two ways a defendant may be liable for a constitutional depri vation under 1983: (1) direct. 1) to restrict the power of the government and 2) to protect the people from the government. International Bus. and all the eleme nts of the best civilization. custody. As long as CPS is allowed to have an exaggerated view of their power andis allowe d by state officials and the courts to exploit that power and abuse it against b oth children and parents. maintain s.

Duffy. 146 F. what. 1978)). at 1355 (emphasis added) (quoting Jo hnson v. 1997). Brokaw v. 1107 (7th Cir. 1998 ) (internal quotation and citations omitted). Harris v. in July 1983 to file false allegations of child neglect in order to cause the DCFS to remove C. 1978). There. for conduct that showed a reckless or ca llous indifference to the rights of others. In this case. 946 F. for his acquiesc ence in the constitutional deprivation . 1997) A supervisor can be liable in his individual capacity if he set in motion a serie s of acts by others. or omits to perform an act which [s/]he is legally r equired to do.3d 1000 (7th Cir 2001) quoting Bowman v. 235 F. and (2) those individual(s) were willful participants in joint activity with the State or its agents. We have explained the nature of the cau sation required in cases of this kind in Johnson v. 2d 368. No more is required at this stage . 1984). Weir and Karen seek cover in the various proceedings instituted as . 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 wh ich the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury. 1992) To establish 1983 liability through a conspiracy t heory. because of the religious beliefs and prac tices of C. if a private citizen conspires with a s tate actor. Fries v.2d 1104. alleged just such a conspiracy between Weir and Karen.3d 1000 (7th Cir 2001) Alternatively.A. Brokaw v. City of Oakland. Not only did both Bonnie Maskery an d the state Defendants conspire to harm Mrs. 1978). s allegations are too vague to withstand dismissal under 12(b)(6). Dutkiewicz because she practiced Wi cca. 2d 740. at 743-44. who was a deputy sheriff. C.2d 740. 1093 (9th Cir. There is little question here that Cooper an d 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 s uffered. A supervisor is liable under 1983 if s/he does an affirmative act. 2d 630. Watkins v. 588 F.A. 373 (4th Cir. Causing constitutional injury. 1991). asserted that Weir and Karen conspir ed with James. from his home and to thereby cause C. or control of his subordinates. Slakan v. s parents to divorce. Supervisory indifference or tacit authorization of subordinates miscondu ct may be a causative factor in constitutional injuries they inflict. Helsper. 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 t he court yet the state Defendants willfully filed the fraudulent petition. then the private citizen is subject to 1983 liability. Id. C. 457 (7th Cir. 126 F. Maskery continued to conspire with state Defendants by manufacturing eviden ce and lying in order to deny the Plaintiffs their due process rights to a fair trial. a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) a state official and private indiv idual(s) reached an understanding to deprive the plaintiff of his constitutional rights. Roderick. 3d 1189 (9th Cir. CAN A PRIVATE CITIZEN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER 1983 EVEN THOUGH PRIVATE CITIZENS CAN NOT ORDINARILY BE HELD LIABLE UNDER 1983? While a private citizen cannot ordinarily be held liable under 1983 because tha equires action under color of state law. City of Franklin. P orter. which he knew or reasonably should have known would cause others to inflict t he constitutional injury. 646 (9th C ir. supervision. 588 F. participates i n another s affirmative acts. Mercer County. A supervisor is liable for his own culpable action or inactio n in the training. 2d 740 (9th Ci r. Larez v.A has alleged all of the nec essary facts: the who. City of Los Angeles. 588 F. Merc er County. Duffy.A. why and how. or knowingly refused to terminate a series of acts by other s. Johnson v. C. [FN 12] While Weir and Karen claim that C. when. Specifically. 743-44 (9th Cir. 145 F. 980 F.A s family. 235 F. 743 -44 (9th Cir. and Dep uty Sheriff James Brokaw. 3d 1087.A. Duffy.A. Id.acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause othe rs to inflict the constitutional injury. 737 F.3d 452.

State-conferred immunity cannot shield a state actor form liabili ty under 1983. CAN THE STATE SHIELD A STATE ACTOR FROM LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 1983? No they cannot. Lamb’s chapel v. Newton. the list of religious preferences in the U. A case was brought in 1983 in the U. Gardnerian Wicca.a result of their complaint: a formal petition for adjudication of wardship. seemingly arguing th at because a court determined that C. Perez v. v. This “deprived him of his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion and his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal pro tection of the laws. Air Force Personnel Data System (MilMod) was augmented to include: Dianic Wicca. 1983 and 1985 COMPLAINT? As the district court correctly found. [C]onduct that is formally private may become so en twined with governmental policies or so impregnated with a governmental characte r as to become subject to the constitutional limitations placed upon state actio n . Center Moriches Union Free School District: conce rns the rental of school facilities after hours by a religious group. California. then these proceedings actually weaken their case because that means t hey succeeded in the earlier stages of their conspiracy they created upheaval in C. Landon: concerns the rights of a Wiccan inmate in a penitentiary. Judge J. 277. 296. insofar as the Hospital was acting in the latter capacity as part of the reporting and enforcement machinery for CWA. 994 (7th Cir.3d 100 0 (7th Cir 2001) IS WICCA / WICCAN A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RELIGION? Government recognition Wiccan and other Neopagan groups have been recognized by governments in the US a nd Canada and given tax-exempt status. they cannot escape liability by pointing to the decisions of prosec utors or grand jurors or magistrates to confine or prosecute him. 299 (1966) Mor a P. should remain in foster care.S. Jones v. The court found that 3 employees of a prison had restricted an inmate in the performance of his Wiccan rituals. and Wicca. and a dispositional hearing by the court. But. Rosemary McIntyre. investigatory conferences held by the DCFS. 764-65 (2d Cir. Sugarman. Moreover. 8 (1980) ( Conduct .: 98-9595) 2nd Cir (1999).A s family by having him removed from his home and by subjected his family to go vernmental interference. 499 F2d 761.” Butzner J. Brokaw v. In certain instances the actions of private entities may be considered t o 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 Gov ernment but for the activities of the private parties. 284 n. adjudication of wards hip by the court. assuming that Weire . It is abund antly clear that none of the State Defendants can claim that one s First Amendment right was not clearly established. Karen and Deputy Sheriff James Brokaw knew the allegations of child neglect we re false. See Martinez v. Druidism.S. and the privilege of performing handfastings/marriages. Wiccan priests and priestesses have been g iven access to penitentiaries in both countries. Pagan. . He said: “We agree with the District C ourt that the doctrine taught by the Church of Wicca is a religion. a go vernment agency charged with detection and prevention of child abuse and neglect the Hospital was a state actor.S. On 2001-MAR-15.S. 856 F. Butzner of the Fourth Circuit Federal Appeals Court confirmed the Dettm er v Landon decision (799F 2nd 929) in 1986. (Case No.2d 985. District Court in Michi gan. .1988). a court hearing. City o f Chicago. that demon strates that their complaints of neglect were justified. as we have held in the criminal context. 235 F. 382 U. 19 86 Fourth Circuit. Seax Wicca.A. [i]f p olice officers have been instrumental in the plaintiff s continued confinement or prosecution. 1974)(quoting Evans v. ARE MANDATED REPORTERS STATE ACTORS AND CAN THE STATE SHIELD STATE ACTORS FROM A 4 2 U.” Dettmer vs. 444 U. Shamanism.C. Mercer County.S.

inter alia. 49 (1988)) (other citations and internal quotation marks omitted). ) [cite omitted]. Id. K & A Radiologic Tech. 795 (2nd Cir.. v. privileges. (quoting. 42 . Indeed. 487 U. Share this: Email Facebook547 Google Reddit Print StumbleUpon Twitter21 Comments (43) Trackbacks (0) Leave a comment Trackback andre jones May 14.S . 131. 198 3 cannot be immunized by state law. 520 U. 164 F. Section 1983 imposes liability on anyone who. Freestone.3d 273. 280 (2nd Cir 1999) (quoting Blessing v.3d 789. 2010 at 12:14 pm Reply . a regime that allowed a state immunity defense to trump the imposition of liability under 1983 would emasculate the federal statute. Corp. The traditional definition of acting under color of state law requires that the defendant in a 1983 action have exercised power possessed by v irtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law. 189 F. Atkins. Casey.by persons acting under color of state law which is wrongful under 42 U. Hardy v. 329.S.. 487 U. 340 !997).S. under color of state law. [T]he core purpose of 1983 is to provide compensatory relief to those d eprived of their federal rights by state actors . 141 (1988)). Inc. West v. 1999) (quoting Felder v. Servs. or immunities secured by the Constitution a nd laws. deprives a person of any rights.C.S. Commissioner of the Dep t of Health . New York City Health & H osps.

0 0 Rate This i need to talk to somebody asap the problem that i have is cps took my fiance ki ds and we was not staying in arkasas we move to texas its like one minute across the line and they came to texas and trick her back to arkans and took the kids and at the time of removable she thought that she had to go back to arkansas she felt like that they fiolent her right by comeing across state line and takeing her kids because there were no reason to take the kids because when they came ou t to take the kids they said they were going to closed the case and transfer the case to texas and they but they didnt she thought she was can u call me at 903 5591540 James Fadden June 15. 2010 at 10:47 pm Reply 0 0 Rate This .

I feel we are being harrassed and they have all the power..DCF have been to my house several times. they always find it to be unsubstantiated. now they are here again throwing false accus ations they told me the Cops have been to my house over 20 times. Always make them go back and get a warrant. there was 7 calls of sevice and three of those times I walked into the police station and one was this report of DCF false claims. I went to the police station and told them what she said. 2010 at 12:46 pm Reply 0 0 Rate This James. Richard England June 17. They printed all issu es concerning my address . I told her she should check with the police because thats not true. again I told her she should check with the police because it is not true. Never allow them in your house. she then looked at her not es and stated the cops have been to your house over 20 times in the past 6 to 7 years. What can I do? yvonnemason June 16. they were just here last April and inve stgated my daughter and my family. 2010 at 1:01 pm Reply .

0 0 Rate This A brilliant review of the law. perhaps in the lobby. 2010 at 6:28 pm Reply 0 0 . are replaced with the character (that’s a rectangular box) which suggests the document was written with a code page that the Web page doesn’t recognize. It needs to be a downloadable/printable PDF for all families to keep a copy in t heir houses. on XP I found all speech marks and italics and non-printing attribut es. Other than that though – a tremendous and important piece of work and a pointer to a future when US families will be able to defend themselves against dogma-drive n and malicious CPS workers and secret court judges. carol June 17. In Firefox. and the police officers who invariably get sucked into their dodgy conspiracies. hallway.

you should be able to download this for other people to see carol June 17. 2011 at 4:46 am Reply . 2010 at 6:22 pm Reply 0 0 Rate This great source of information thank you for this my question is would this apply w hen children are stolen from the parent in a doctors office parking lot please e -mail me if you know the answer at carol.Rate This i agree with you.skeens@live.com domestic violence quotes August 2.

kjonline. You have ended my four day lengthy hunt! God Bless you man.com/news/couple-fights-to-regain-custody-of-adopted-son_2011 -09-29.0 0 Rate This I take pleasure in. By e Russell Handler September 30.html . result in I discovered exactly what I was taking a look for. Have a nice day. 2011 at 8:31 pm Reply 0 0 Rate This http://www.

you just received a new reader.Trust after an affair November 15. 2011 at 6:31 pm Reply 0 0 Rate This Magnificent points altogether. What may you sugg est about your put up that you made some days ago? Any certain? Donni Wilson December 27. 2011 at 9:34 am Reply 0 0 Rate This .

2012 at 10:47 pm Reply 0 0 Rate This Wow. Ionly wish I had known back in 1995 when i was a battered woman and railroaded by the system under “failure t o protect”. P. Deborah Parks March 4. I fought them for a year as they lied constantly about me-and made arr angements for termination of my parental rights-it was only by some miracle i g ot them back. 2012 at 4:03 pm Reply . Scully January 10. What a powerful source of information! It’s great to know that parents and ch ildren have rights as well as the state.Again thanks for being a watchman for the less informe d.I would likee to thank and commend you on your efforts to inform and educate tho se who are not aware of their constitutional rights. i worked with Ca Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl to fix the legislation and it eventually passed.

UNITE AGAINST SOCIA FIND A WAY TO GET MEDIA ATTENTION BEFORE YOUR CH FAMILY WITH MONEY” THAT HAS ALREADY PAID FOR A CHILD… the next child adopted COULD BE YOURS! please see my blog for many stories of mothers and families losing their childre n FOR NO GOOD REASON and even WITH COURT ORDER BY A JUDGE TO RETURN THE CHILDREN . AND THEN th ey will still keep them AND YOU WILL NOT GET THEM BACK! Once they have them. but I KNOW IN MY HEART LAWS ARE BEING BROKEN. father.com/ Raini Ketchum June 12. honestly. THEY ARE NOT GIVING THEM BACK. families everywhere. Imminent danger DOES NOT HAVE TO BE PROVEN. they hold ALL OF THE CARDS AND YOU CANNOT GET THEM BACK! More needs to be done than knowing the law. and WE HAVE NO RECOURSE EXCEPT TO SPEND EVERY DIME YOU HAVE TRYING TO GET THEM BACK AND THEY WILL KEEP THEM UNTIL YOU HAVE NO MORE MONEY. mothers and children. 2012 at 1:37 am . L SERVICES TAKING OUR CHILDREN. ILD IS ADOPTED OUT TO A “LOVING Be careful supporting adoption. just “implied” by the social services entity. YOU HAVE TO GET INTO COURT and by then THEY ALREADY HAVE YOUR CHILDR EN! So. THEY ARE NOT BEING RETURNED TO THEIR PARENTS! please help everyone get their children back by DEMANDING that they be returned IMMEDIATELY… believe me. THEY WILL NOT GIVE THEM BACK WILLINGLY… http://irevolutiontree. I am going to share the link to this information. HAVEN’T YOU BEEN WATCHING THE NE WS AROUND THE WORLD? GOVERNMENTS ARE TAKING CHILDREN EVERYWHERE FOR LITTLE OR NO REASON. children are be ing taken. you don’t really have these rights because CPS and family courts do NOT FOLLOW THE LAWS and to have your RI GHTS HEARD.wordpress. because it believe it is t rue and important. Citizens of the world.2 0 Rate This For all the rights you have (had) and all of the rules and laws that are in plac e to protect families. mothers. AND WITHOUT EXTREME PRESSURE AND PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THEIR WRONGDOIN G.

Reply 1 0 Rate This I love you Deborah! You give me hope. 2012 at 10:24 am Reply 0 0 Rate This I worked for CPS for 8 years working my way up to a departmental assistant. I su pported management and maintained the statistics etc. . Evy Wiborg July 3.

9. her m other kicked her out of the house making her homeless. restored the m others benefits and returned the children to her. She did th is in probate family court and one week before her court date in jan 2012. Now. and 7 stay with her. I learned that the guardian lied and had called CPS saying that the mother w as on drugs and had abandoned the children and her wherabouts were unknown. a grandfather is not going to skip over his son and start molesting his grandson. The children were removed and the guardianship recinded. The mother was given a bu nch of dead end worthless referrals. they do not provide the dates or met hods in which they made these attempts. I al so learned that the bio son of the now guardians had been seriosly molested by t he now deceased paternal grandfather. Upon going to court. Now. xanax. and the son had history of predatory behav ior. However if I had made a referral. i believe CPS should have admitted thier oversite. accusing her of being a drug ad dict and unable to care for her kids due to chronic homelessness. However. th ey still awarded guardianship to this couple and believed everything the propose d guardian said. A nieghbor offered to let my friend’s 3 boys ages 13. When sh e called CPS she was told there was no open case. and she had no reliable transportati on. the mother lost her welfare. and since I had no proof other than a “gut” feel ing. and never even attempted to contact the mother. I had to threaten CPS in order for them to clarify that the case is now closed because it is in guardianship. so I suspected that the f ather was also a victim/preditor and that my friends three boys were in danger. and soma. I was able to meet with the social worker as the mothers authorized representati ve. I advised the mother to file a petition to end the guardianship. instead they placed t he children in fostercare and offered thier bullshit services to the mother trea ting her as though she had done something wrong. In addition the mother and now guardian was very ill. her husband and biological 17 year old son during the week for school and my fri end would pick them up every weekend so that the kids could remain at the same s chool. And when the guard ianship was awarded. forced to go all the way to simi valley to visit her kids while she has no car. oxycodone. With all of this known to CPS. it would have been interpreted as retaliation. the bi o mother is going to lose her parental rights while the courts are still facilit ating visits between the perp guardians and the children!!!!!!! HELP! do we call gloria alred or what? yvonnemason July 3. had double mastectomy and on methodone. although thier records refer to many unsuccesful attempts. Upon which the boys told authorities that they w ere being molested by the guardians son who took all the blame. foodstamps and medical leaving her unable to obtain housing or support her children. again. During police in terviews the guardian admitted being present during the assaults but did not fee l it was important to mention to CPS ( however she continued to make false repor ts to CPS about the bio mother).I am retired for medical reasons since 2005. especially after what has happened to her family under the watch of CPS. After one month my friend called on a friday for her kids and she was tol d by the nieghbor that they had court yesterday and the courts granted temporary guardianship and that she was to contact CPS for supervised visitation. the judge ordered an investigation. and therefore not taken seriously. I thought she should Refuse services but the atty representing her said not to admit to anythi ng but to agree to the caseplan after she reviewed it. However I have recently tried to he lp a friend who was evicted from her house. I know. no money. and several mental health issues. 2012 at 12:06 pm Reply .

They do not care about the parents. the children or the lives they destroy it is all about the money! Lily November 29. This is the standard operati ng procedure now. 2012 at 7:03 am Reply 0 0 Rate This How can CPS tear kids out of their homes and away from their parents? Do they th ink the children don’t have feelings & that it’s okay to treat them like property in stead of human beings? .2 0 Rate This This is not the first time nor will it be the last.

telling me that she had t o speak to the kids. The allegations are false and I don’t know what to do. 2013 at 2:05 pm Reply . She and one of the deputies proceeded to tel l accuse me of hiding something if I wouldn’t let them talk to the kids. We told her no after seeking legal advice. There is a false report that I do not give my kids enough healthcare or clothing. She showed up later that day with two bernalillo deputy sheriffs. I told her that my husband had already informed her that sh e would not interview our children.Rowena January 3. 2013 at 4:03 am Reply 1 0 Rate This We are in a case with cyfd right now. Help ! Thanks. The social worker told me that she had t o interview the children. casonia slave Logenberry January 27. I don’t kno w what to expect next. I called the kids to the door so they could do the welfare check and they left.

0 0 Rate This this creeps take one look at your child and that is it. 2013 at 2:07 pm Reply 0 0 Rate This THIS BOOK IS ABOUT CASONIA SADE LOGENBERRY STOLEN CHILDREN OF CPS AND A LIE STAR TED THE INVESTAGATION AND DALE PATON REISNER IS GETTING AWAY WITH A LIE AND I AM NOT GOING TO LAY DOWN AND TAKE IT AND I WILL SPEND MY TIME TALKING ABOUT THIS B ITCH UNTIL I GET MY COURT DATE AND Have that lieing bitch on the stand and just waiting to see if this liars ever pay attention and cover up kelly taylor and le e barns? . REMEMBER That man had children but cps never bot hered to pick up his children pending and investagation? casonia slave Logenberry January 27. they are going to do eve rything in there power to steal your child but in my mind…I WISH THEY WOULD HAVE M ESSED WITH OSAMA BIN LADENS CHILDREN AND I BET IT WOULD NOT HAD TAKEN 10 YEARS T O FIND HIM AND ZERO MAN THIRTY.

because this peo ple will make up lies against you and never allow you to prove your case…if you go t a rock solid case closed and proven cps will not listen to one single word. casonia slave Logenberry January 27. 2013 at 2:11 pm Reply 0 0 Rate This THIS BOOK IS ABOUT CPS A RAT TRAP WAITING AND IF YOU TALK TO THIS FOLKS YOUR TAL KING YOURSELF INTO DRAMA AND SO SILENCE AND A ROCK SOLID GOODBYE IS GOOD!The mor e you say is the more cps play and if you give this folks an single inch…they will take a mile and…this folks are not trust worthy and you have to keep all your fee lings and words inside and never hold a conversation with them.casonia slave Logenberry January 27. 2013 at 2:14 pm Reply .

2013 at 2:17 pm Reply 0 0 Rate This THIS BOOK IS ABOUT NEVER TRUST CPS BECAUSE THIS SICK ASS MOTHER FUCKERS WILL MAK E YOUR LIFE A MESS AND MAKE YOUR LIFE INTENSE AND ADD NOTHING BUT ANGER AND STRE SS AND FRUSTRATION AND HARASS AND SEE CPS NEVER GIVES THE FOSTER PARENTS TIME OF THE DAY AND BOTHER THE HECK OUT A PARENT AND GOD KNOW THAT I FEEL SCREWED OVER BY CPS AND THIS BOOK IS ABOUT HURT AND MADNESS AND SADNESS AND LONELYNESS AND IT IS SO UNFAIR THAT THE PERSON WHO STARTS THE BULL CRAP WILL NOT GET THERE COWARD ASS ON THE STAND? . NEVER TRUST CPS AND THIS CREEPY PEOPLE WILL MAKE YOUR LIFE A M ESS AND THIS PUNK ASS BASTARDS WILL PUT YOU IN A TRAP AND THEN LATER ON WRITE A MAP OF WHAT YOUR FUTURE SHOULD BE AND CO/PARENTS WILL 20 PEOPLE OR LESS AND GOD KNOWS YOU FEEL LIKE A WHORE PASSED TO EACH TRICK! CPS PIMPS OUT PEOPLE AND BREAK S THERE SPIRITS? casonia slave Logenberry January 27.1 0 Rate This A BOOK ABOUT CPS.

2013 at 2:24 pm Reply 1 . 2013 at 2:22 pm Reply 0 0 Rate This I REALLY WISH CPS WOULD FUCK WITH THE WRONG PERSON AND THEY GET SUED BADLY AND Y ES IT HAS HAPPENED BUT TAKEN CARE OF REALLY FAST BUT IT SEEMS LIKE CPS STORIES A RE ALWAYS SWEEP UNDER THE RUG. THERE EDUCATION IS ONLY UP TO 8TH GRADE AND IT REALLY STINKS THAT THEY ARE NOT PICKED ON! casonia slave Logenberry January 27. CPS DOES NOT GIVE A RATS ASS ABOUT PEOPLE THEY HA VE FUCKED OVER AND WISH THEY WOULD FUCK WITH THE AMISH.casonia slave Logenberry January 27.

casonia slave Logenberry January 27. 2013 at 2:27 pm Reply 0 0 Rate This POSTER GIRL FOR FREEDOM TO RAISE THERE OWN CHILD IN PEACE AND THAT IS WHITNEY HO USTEN AND YES SHE IS AN INCREDIBLE SINGER AND HAS A GREAT ACTING CAREER BUT SHE DIED DOING DRUGS BUT AT ANY POINT CPS NEVER TOOK HER ONLY DAUGHTER AWAY PENDING ANY INVESTAGATION AND SHE GOT TO RAISE HER CHILD IN PEACE. casonia slave Logenberry January 27. 2013 at 2:29 pm .0 Rate This I GET PISSED OFF WHEN I SEE CELEBRATIES WHO ARE INTO DRUGS BIG TIME LIKE OZZY OS BORN IS DOING DRUGS FOR YEARS AND CPS NEVER BUGGED HIM AND YES HE IS RICH AND HA S ENOUGH MONEY TO KEEP THOSE SEASONEL KIDNAPPERS AT BAY FOR YEARS TO COME.

2013 at 3:35 am Reply 0 1 Rate This cps takes some truth and then create there own story and that means your freedom is gone and know your going to be treated like a teenager and they are going to .Reply 0 0 Rate This ALL OF DOCTOR DREWS PATIENTS GET TO RAISE THERE KIDS IN PEACE AND THEY HAVE FREE DOM BUT THEY HAVE MONEY TO KEEP THE SLAVE MASTERS AWAY AND THERE FORE HAVING LOT S OF MONEY MEANS YOU CAN KEEP CPS AT BAY! casonia slave Logenberry January 28.

casonia slave Logenberry January 28. 2014 at 7:10 pm Reply . is because the y are getting ready to steal the smile out of your every day for the next 18 yea rs.be the boss of you and the reason they smile when they meet you. all the pleasure and fun is completely sucked out of your life and they are compusive liars who are willing to suck you in and steal your life away from you and your child in order to control you and to make you a sla ve of the state! rhonda February 17.you become a child of cps AND THEY TELL YOU HOW TO RAISE YOUR CHILD AND WHAT PROGRAMS TO PUT YOUR CHILD AND SO THEY CAN HAVE THERE SPIES WATCH YOUR EVERY MOV E. 2013 at 3:39 am Reply 0 0 Rate This with cps in your life.

.. when a school or doctor sends records to cps or allows them to view them without permission Both the sender and reciever VIOLATE D the LAW! Warrants are needed! Parents have THE RIGHT to exercise there childre ns 4th and 5th AMENDMENT PROTECTION. THE PEOPLE HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HOLD THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE when it denys the LAW.1 0 Rate This NEVER EVER let Cps or whatever name they use(TERRORIST) into YOUR HOME EVER! the se so-called workers are VALIDATORS!! compelling you to make statments seizing “ev idence” and coercing statements to make it stand in court!They are all FABRICATED lies! NEVER EVER SIGN any waiver! BESIDES they came on private property Without a Warrant! Never be intimadated if they have an officer with them that officer i s NOT exempt FROM… MIRANDA RIGHTS! Nor do they have the right to go to a childs Sc hool and pull them out of class Nor does the school have the right to let these people look at your childs records! anyone doing so can be held accountable … the giver and the reciever … YOUR Childs record are Protected by FERPA and HIPPA! THEY need a lawful warrant clause.S citizens live s and VIOLATE the PRIVACY RIGHT 14th Amendment! SO PLEASE GO TO your Court House and get Court Papers and Put DECLARATION OF ……. IT IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONS TITUTIONAL Practice for cps to REMOVE children solely they are in contempt and l aw-breaking . STATE OF…. 2013 at 3:47 am Reply 0 0 . COUNTY OF… and go from ther e ITS YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!!! Lets bring these kids home!!!! casonia slave Logenberry January 28. also child protective services can not impose a standard of living this would be an abuse of The JUDICIAL system to intrude into U.

Rate This CPS ONLY PICKS ON THE POOR BECAUSE WE ARE POOR AND CAN’T AFFORD A REAL LAWYER AND CPS HAS NO HEART AND THAT IS THE REASON THERE BUDGET NEEDS TO BE CUT AND SLICED BECAUSE THIS FOLKS LOVE TO PUT BIG FAT MONEY IN THERE POCKETS FOR EUROPE! LOWER THERE PAY?? THOSE SOCIAL WORKERS MAKE MORE MONEY THEN SCHOOL TEACHER BUT SCHOOL TEACHER BRING JOY AND LAUGHTER TO PEOPLE AND CPS BRINGS ON DEATH OF CHILDREN IN THERE CARE AND RAPE AND ABUSE…BIG DIFFERENCE? casonia slave Logenberry January 28. 2013 at 3:49 am Reply 0 0 Rate This PROTECTING YOURSELF AND YOUR FUTURE BUT MOST OF ALL NEVER ALLOWING THOSE HURTFUL PEOPLE IN YOUR FUTURE AS WELL AND PROTECTING YOUR FUTURE CHILDREN FROM CPS AND NEVER TRUST AND ALLOW THOSE FOLKS IN MY HOME AND NEVER HOLD A CONVERSATION WITH THEM IS KEY? casonia slave Logenberry .

2013 at 3:59 am Reply 0 . WHERE THERE IS NOTHING WRONG…JUST TO KEEP UP THERE CASE L OAD AND GET THAT EXTRA FAT JUICEY ASS CHECK!BLOOD SUCKING VAMPIRES OF THE WORLD…WH AT I KNOW ABOUT CPS IS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE OVER AND CONTROL YOUR LIFE AN D HARASS AND STALK AND BOTHER THE FUCK OUT OF A PERSON AND THAT IS THE REASON I LEARNED TO HATE EACH PERSON…BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRUST IN A MAN OR WOMAN WHO NEVER KEEPS THERE OWN WORD AND WILL NOT FOLLOW THERE OWN CONTRACT AND THIS BASTARD…BREEC H THERE OWN CONTRACTS AND REFUSE TO LEAVE WHEN THEY SAY THEY ARE GOING TO LEAVE…MY HATEFUL FEELINGS IS THAT I WISH THEY WOULD HAVE A HEART ATTACK AND DIE AND SO T HAT WAY I WOULD NOT HAVE TO SEE THAT PERSON AGAIN…. casonia slave Logenberry January 28. 2013 at 3:55 am Reply 0 0 Rate This CPS NEVER KEEPS THERE WORD AND THEY ARE BREAKER OF PEOPLE LIVES AND BRINGS ON MO RE SADNESS AND HURT TO THE WORLD AND THIS FOLKS SLEEP WELL AT NIGHT KNOWING THEY JUST BROKE UP A FAMILY.January 28.BUT GOD KNOWS I HAVE NEVER BEEN FORCED TO BE AROUND PEOPLE.

THEY ARE THERE TO ST EAL THE JOY AND LAUGHTER OUT OF YOUR LIFE. casonia slave Logenberry ..0 Rate This YES IT TAINTED MY HOME HAVING PEOPLE THAT I HATE AND DISLIKED IN MY HOME AGAINST MY WILL AND THAT IS ABUSE AND BEING BULLIED AND ALSO I RATHER HAD THAT TIME DOI NG SOMETHING ELSE WITH MY FAMILY BUT WAS FORCED EVERY SINGLE WEEK AND MONTH AND EVERY YEAR AND THIS CONTRACT WAS TO END 2003 AND THIS LIEING BASTARDS REFUSE TO LEAVE 2006???CPS NEVER KEEPS THERE WORD AND THEY WILL NOT LEAVE UNTIL THEY TAKE YOUR CHILD AND THAT IS THERE GOALS AND THERE CLIENTS ARE HELL BENT ON GETTING TH ERE PET? casonia slave Logenberry January 28. 2013 at 4:04 am Reply 0 0 Rate This CPS DOES NOT WANT YOU TO BE HAPPY OR HAVE JOY IN YOUR LIFE.

2013 at 4:08 am Reply 0 0 Rate This PUSH AND PRESSURE AND BOTHER AND CPS OFTEN MESS WITH THE WRONG PERSON AND IGNORE THE REAL PROBLEMS.January 28. 2013 at 11:37 pm Reply 0 0 Rate This . CPS IS FULL OF SHIT AND I BET IF YOU PUT THOSE SOCIAL WORKER S ON A LIE DETECTIVE TEST THIS LADIES WOULD BE OUT OF A JOB SO FAST. mandy jones February 3.

my daughter and my sister have been a subject to ss taking their kids of them ju st recntly my sister had a baby she was allowed to have skin to skin contact at the hospital even the babys soscail worker said good luck with your baby then th ey say put your baby volontery in foster care or they will get the police to com e to the hospital to take the baby so she was forced to give the baby up to fost er care untill they get things sorted so is there any advice you could give me t o help my sister out in her situaion please cos its not fair on her and her litt le one andher other children who she has her eldest at home with her but her oth er 3 witch 2 of them are in foster care and her other little boy has been addope d out so she wont get to see him at all untill he is oldernuff to want to meet h is mum i feel usless cos i dont know how to help her they wont even let me foste r her new born cos i wont let her eldest son stay with me cos they think he will harm the little one but he wont yes he has got a temper but only towards the so scial services cos of what they have done in taking his younger brothers and sis ter i would be greatfull if you could give me any advice pleae i live in uk luto n PatrIcia Morrison October 18. where do you live and what county are you in. . I h ave dealt with CPS and they will lie and cheat to take your children away from y ou. w When she goes before the judge she needs to insist that he make them give her o ne to prove her innocence so they will have to return her children to her. If sh e has a spouse he will need to do the same. If either one of them is gullty that one will have to move out of the home before the children will be returned. I am getting ready to start a uproar over what they did to me. 2014 at 2:43 pm Reply 0 0 Rate This If she is innocent offer to take a polygraph test for whattever they are accused of and if they refused.

2013 at 6:17 pm Reply 0 0 . 2013 at 6:13 pm Reply 0 0 Rate This My parental rights were taken away 18 months ago and sadly my lawyer says to sit tight until my appeals in Atlanta.angie carter February 20. freda February 24. How long does it take to get my seven year o ld son back? He’s waiting for mommy to come get him.

I went to every extremei could imagine. pl ease. were i reside. I havent held nor seen them in almost 4 yrs.they responded wjth a letter stating im sorry we see there were many procedures of the state of tx code book the law should foll ow. Nowmy children have been moved from two foster homes within 4yrs. 2013 at 1:49 pm Reply 1 0 Rate This I lost my parental rights almost 4 yrs.wat do i do… . I never sa w a warrant to take my babys. after a 2 1/2yrs fight. and i evengave a clean u. I wrote a letter to the stat e office of tx . that day. old son if he was to run away from the fost er home hes in and ran to me his mom who the state of minnesota has a chips pati on on.a. There were many mistakes and procedures that were not followed that were really necessary t o be taken.o just want h elp to bring my babys home.Rate This what could happen to me or my 16 yr. thank you beyond word if theres an answer out there for us naomi May 18. inee to know like last week its extremly important to get this answer. Ago..

neglected.. Now she made us agree w a plan. 2014 at 12:40 pm Reply . We hunt. I live in Detroit and I need easy access to my gun to protect my family from predators and to protect my dog from vicious strays. My quest ion is at this point can I just refuse to comply. My kids are taught gun safety an d my oldest six year old will be at the gun range legally next year.oogggaaabooga August 18. or file a complaint w CPS? I plan o n not letting her in my home and just pray to God my family is safe. Why all three allagations were shown to be exage rated. and guns whats next? Anyone with answers please contact celen ayballou@gmail. Always unloaded ammo locked away. I have had multiple men try to break into our home my husband works nights. Do I still have to allow th is ignorant woman to force me under duress to knowingly commit a crime punishabl e by imprisonment. God. Then have a nice day. She has no court order. She said she would be around for months. So my gun is always in use never stored. Also this woman i s anti gun and has made me agree to lock my unloaded shotgun in a pad locked clo set. NFA. If they tak e our family.com thanks and God bless all whom may encounter these idiot’s. AGAIN I live in Detroit murder capital. I have a right to protect my family. let her see my kids are not ab used. Call the NRA .. Brandie C November 19. ACLU. 2014 at 10:39 pm Reply 0 0 Rate This This book doesnt aay what to do if you have talked to them and they have talked to your kids. Now if I do that it is improper storage of a firearm subject to inprisonmen t. I didnt let them in my home. or exploited. . But they refuse to go away.

twitter and any other social media you have . I also have done endless research and have good information i woul d like to pass on its very helpful and extremely important.0 0 Rate This I wanna get involved in a DCFS watch in my county . Can you please contact me an d let me know how you went about first getiing started. I to have been robbed of my children.com or any of the other free blogging sites and post your inform ation linking it to your facebook. 2014 at 2:50 pm Reply 0 0 Rate This The best way to get involved is either post things here or set up your own blog using wordpress. yvonnemason November 19.

.Leave a Reply Enter your comment here. Gravatar WordPress.com Logo Twitter picture Facebook photo ..Enter your comment here...

Google+ photo RSS feed .

Fred Bau ghman Our Nation consistently Maintained that parents posses a fundamental right to ra ise their children as they see fit. In Foster Care? Eve n Limited Immunities for Foster Parents Are Dangerous How to Protect Yourself From CPS Author Brenda Alexander who lost her children t o CPS Important Information by a Lawyer Information About the Child Protective Services Program of the Department of Hum an Services Investigating Child Sexual Abuse Allegations by Susan J Sachsenmaier Letter to a Judge by Hope Crabtree On Psychiarty and Child Protective Services in the United States By Dr.Never Trust Anyone From CPS Summary of Adoption and Safe Families Act The Corrupt Business of Child Protection Services The Official How List For Aquiring Federal and State Money When Children Taken B y the State Are Adopted Out This is the Going Rate for the Buying of Our Children in Georgia This is What Happens When States Take Your Children Title IV Funding United States Supreme Court Parental Rights CaseLaw Your Constitutional Rights Under Miranda Archives Select Month June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 February 2014 December 2013 Augu st 2013 March 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2 012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 A ugust 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 201 1 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 Aug ust 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 .Pages About This Site A Report Which was Written by An Intern – Be Sure and Read the Par t Highlighted in Bold Author Yvonne Mason Child Protection Services in Michagin Written by An Attorney Child Protective Services.not the state Profane Justice by Suzanne Shell Senate Set To Renew 1997 Law That Pays CPS to Kidnap Children Social Services Investigations: The Removal of Children From The Home Something Every Parent Should Have – A How To Booklet.Historical Review and Current System Written by Willi am Wesley Patton CPS Victories for Parent’s Rights May Help in Dealing with CPS Custody Cases: Protecting Children from Sexual Abuse Drugging Foster Children Federal laws Affecting State Proceedings Fourth Amendment Rights Georgia Defense Packet for Parents Who Have Had Their Children Stolen BY DFCS Georgia’s Responsibility Toward Children in Foster Care:This is An Important Read Guidelines for Attorneys for Parents Who have lost their children to CPS How Safe is the System? It Isn’t How Should the Law Respond When Children Die Or Are Injured.

572 hits Categories Abuse by CPS Abuse by Family Court Judges Abuse By Foster Parents Abuse by Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue against parents who have lost children to CPS Abuse by Mental Health and CPS using drugs to keep Children under control Abuse in the Public Defenders office adoption and safe families act Andrea Fleary Miami Dade DCF Attorneys Barahona Case blog talk radio Books . Lemons and Limes TX:Sunset Releases Staff Report on DFPS Mother’s Day Article 5 Page 564 Georgia Law Enforcement Handbook 2003-04 In the State of Georgia How Can a Child be Taken Under “Depravation” and the Parent Not Be Charged in Criminal Court? January 2015 M T W T F S S « Jun 1 2 5 6 7 12 13 19 20 26 27 3 4 8 9 10 11 14 15 16 17 18 21 22 23 24 25 28 29 30 31 Blog Stats 692.Jim Black savethechild2013 yvonnemason Recent Posts Fighting CPS with Oranges.

CASA case law Contacting your Attorney General corruption in DFCS/cps corruption in Juvenile Courts Court Rulings on abuse by CPS CPS Guides & Handbooks for Parents Criminals as caseworkers Damage Done to Children in Foster Care DCF Caseworker arrested Differenent rules for employees of DFC Domestic Violence and CPS Entertainment Extoration of Children by CPS Faces of the Children up for sale in Georgia Falisfyin records false allagations of child abuse Family Rights Fighting CPS Follow the Money Foster Parents Liliblity fourth amendment and cps Freddi Mac Foundation Georgia DFCS Managers Manual Georgia Gov Deal Georgia SB292 Gerogia Statutes for Deprivaton Cases in Juvenile Court Getting Records hate mail Hate Mail and Rebuttal Homeschooling and DFCS illegal entry by Police illegal panels Immunity Interstsate Compact Investigation into Georgia Child Protective Servies Jackson County DFCS and Judge Kevin Guidry Jackson County GA DFCS Panel Jackson County Georgia DFCS Jacqui Colyer Lawsuits against CPS Letter to Gov Sonny Perdue List of Addresses to write for your children Lobbyists for CPS Murdered Children at the Hands of Foster Parents and CPS Nancy Schaefer Speaks Out Negative Effects of Foster Care News and politics News Cast Open comment to the Public Over medication of Children by Doctors parental abuse parents rights Paulding County DCF Places to File Complaints About Judges Review Panels Rights to Information in Your File Shake up at Jackson County Ga DFCS Tax Credits for Stolen Children The Money behind CPS .

Reform Mass Outrage Mass Outrage Michigan Parental Rights Stop Corruption in DSS . Blog at WordPress.Psych Evals Fighting CPS Georgia Coalition for Child Protection Reform Holly Demands Justice Honk For Kids Lifting the Veil. Corruption in Child Protection Servcies Abuse by Gwinnett County DFCS and The DA Abuse in CPS Another Site for Education of Parents Blog Town CPS Abuses Children killed at the hands of CPS CPS Forensic Journals Does Foster Care Protect Children Family Rights.com.Title IV-B Funding Title IV-E Funding Uncategorized violation of the 13th amendments of children websites where foster children are adopted out What to do when Accused of Child Abuse You Tube Videos abuse by CPS Your Rights Under the Constitution ADHD Manual ADHD Manual A Must have for every parent whose child is in the system Adoption and familis childrens act Adoption Acts Rips Families Apart Child Protective Services History and Reivew or the absurdity of Current Laws.com.I T destroys families Attorneys Georgia Office of Family Representations Tom Rawlings Website of an Attorney in Jackson County Ga Who specializes in fighting DFCS Blogroll Nancy Schaefer Runs of Congress Pam Roach Report Talks about the abuse of Psych Exams The CASA Hand book for GA The Caseworkers and Supervisors Manual for the State of Ohio A Must have for par ents The Supreme Court of Georgia Administrative Office of the Courts Committee on Ju stice for Children Annual Report for 2008 This Judge was Finally Removed from the Bench Blog at WordPress.

The Corrupt Business of Child Protection Services The Corrupt Business of CPS Time to take Action CPS Abused by CPS Adoption Acts Rips Families Apart Children s Rights CPS Abuse CPS Drugs and Children Everything you ever wanted to know about CPS But were Never Told KidJacked The Taking of Our Children Nazi and CPS Nazis and CPS Philip Brennan Stopping abuse and corruption This is how CPS Operates step by step CPS Guides & Handbooks for Parents All of the Forms DFCS Uses A Must Have An Assessment Report of ICPC in Georgia Caseworker Manual for South Carolina Child Protection Services Differential Response June 2009 Fasley Accused This Attorney Shows how it is done to protect yourself Fighting CPS Packets A must Have Free Handbook to Teach parents how to protect themselves from CPS Handbook for CPS Workers for the State of Texas Parent Attorney Trial Notebook for Deprivation Cases in Georgia s Juvenile Court s Preventing Abuse by the system in New York A Parents Guide Protecting Parental Rights Questions Parents Ask Very Useful Information Regarding CPS CPS Handbooks and Manuals Alaska CPS Manual (PDF) Arizona Childrens Services Manual Arkansas DCFS Manual (PDF) California DSS Manual DHHS Childrens Bureau Policy Manual Florida Policy & Procedure Handbook (PDF) Georgia DFCS Manual Idaho Child Protection manual Iowa Policy Manual (PDF) Kansas Policy and Procedure Manual Kentucky Child Protection Practice Manual Louisiana Policy Management Maine Policy & Rules Massachusetts Regulations and Policies Mississippi Policy Manual Missouri Child Welfare Manual Montana DFSD Manual Nevada Policies North Carolina DHHS Manuals Ohio ODJFS Manuals South Carolina DSS Manuals Texas CPS Handbook .

Washington State DSHS Manuals CPS Related Blogs & Sites Angel Eyes over Texas – Blog Angel Eyes over Texas – DFPS Changes Fathers and Families Legally Kidnapped Death in Foster Care Abuse by the System Children are safer in their own home than foster care CPS Watch Foster Parents Go To Jail Law Review on Deaths in Foster homes Statement from the Comptroller of Texas Family Defense Center Family Defense Center Parental Rights Michigan Federal Law Federal Law Law Library Just Georgia Public Library of Law Lawsuite Advocates CPS Lawsuite Advocate Have Your Rights been violated if so contact these folks lawsuits Lawsuites by Parents Parents Abused By CPS Petitions Abolish CPS Go Petition reasonable efforts Reasonable Efforts Rights Under The Fourth Amendment Fourth Amendment Fourth Amendment Rights stolen children Care2 Children who became foster kids and were left to fend for themselves .

Lem… Christopher hoskinso… on The Time Line of the Corruptio… At Least 75% of Chil… on At Least 75% of Children in Fo… RSS Gary James Show ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT: MODELING.com.WHAT A BUSINESS June 14.s .CPS is the Abuser when they take children away from innocent parents Disgusted With The System Fight CPS Fighting CPS I was Just a Kic More Abuse in Foster Care Parents Rights stolen Children The Abuse in Koffman Texas by CPS and Judges Supervisor Handbook for DFCS for the State of Georgia Supervisors Hand Book for DFCS for the State of Georgia Title IV Funding Texas Title IV-E Finance Handbook for County Contracts Texas Title IV-E Training Contracts Financial Handbook The Numbers don t Lie Title I-V Funding How Child Protection Services is Selling Our Children Enter your email address: Delivered by FeedBurner How Child Protection Services Is Stealing Our Children How Child Protection Services Buys and Sells Our Children ↑ Grab this Headline Animator Meta Register Log in Entries RSS Comments RSS Blog at WordPress. Sonia s web site is at www... Lem… Mary Bissell on Fighting CPS with Oranges. 2010 Meet a professional working model Sonia Fitch as she speaks about the aloof mode ling industry and tells her story of what it takes. Recent Comments Eric Gochenour on Attorneys for Parents Are Not… Mary Bissell on Fighting CPS with Oranges.

. "The law of huma n nature known as "The Mammalian Way"(TMW)has been a part of the human condition for nearly as long as humans have existed.... THE DRAMA CONTAINS FRANK LANGUAGE AND INTENSE SEXUAL CONTEXT. It simply went undiscovered for many centuries and so humans […] CONVERSATIONS WITH WOMEN: RELATIONSHIP SURVIVAL. WHERE DOES THE MAMMALIAN WAY BE GIN AND FIT IN?..EPISODE ONE May 14...HOW DOES THE MAMMA LIAN WAY FIT IN? April 20..listen and learn and please refer all people who aspire to the profession to tune in too... 2010 CHEATING: Another segment for Personal Relationship Therapy..IT SIMPLY DOES NOT FAIL. We bring into the o pen issues that beg such questions as "Why do I stay"? "Do I Really need to be i n a Relationship"? "Can I repair my existing relationship"?..com tune in.com Mo st relationship problems quickly fade once you understand that the animal to ani mal connection between two people is the key to ANY RELATIONSHIP SURVIVAL. 2010 A CONTINUATION OF PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP THERAPY... call in with questions. Just wait until you hear men tal k about men s issues with women.... HELP TEENAGERS COPE WITH THE MA MMALAIN WAY May 6. IT IS MEANT FOR MATURE AUDIENCES ONLY. 2010 A FURTHER CONTINUATION OF PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP THERAPY. 2010 THE DRAMA SERIES IS BASED ON A TRUE STORY. WHERE DOES THE MAMMALIA N WAY BEGIN AND FIT IN?. "PUBERTY"... THE RESULT HAS BEE N SEX BEFORE THEY ARE SUPPOSEDLY READY. "PUBERTY"..oniamodel. You think wom en have issues with relationships.. CONVERSATIONS WITH WOMEN: COPING WITH RELATIONSHIP SURVIVAL. 2010 Corbin Dailey is a published author and is in the process of producing a series of novels set within the world of vampires.... The interesting thing is Dailey s fr esh approach to the vampire genre.. They cont inually violate "The Mammalian Way" and it burns them.. TUNE IN AND LISTEN AS WE DISC […] THE MAMMALAIN WAY: The Drama Series. FOR CENTURIES TEENAGERS HAVE BE EN FORCED TO DEAL WITH THE MAMMALIAN WAY WITH OUT KNOWING WHAT IT IS... For men.. THE RESULT HAS BEEN SEX BEFORE THEY ARE SUPPOSEDLY READY. FOR CENTURIES TEENAGERS HAVE BEEN FORCE D TO DEAL WITH THE MAMMALIAN WAY WITH OUT KNOWING WHAT IT IS.. 2010 MORE RELATIONSHIP THERAPY CONTINUED.. 718664-9522. COMPLETE WITH SURPRISE GUEST..BULLYING AND DATING ABUSE THAT HAS BECOME AN EVER GROWING PR […] CONVERSATIONS WITH MEN: RELATIONSHIP SURVIVAL & "THE MAMMALIAN WAY" CONTINUED Ap ril 28. Just wait until you hear men talk about men s issues with women. Listen and lear n how women cope and otherwise handle such issues and how an understanding of "T ... Listen in then go to www. THE ONE THING FO R SURE IS WOMEN ARE LEARNING THAT IF THEY FOLLOW THE TENETS OF "THE MAMMALIAN WA Y" THEIR RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE OPPOSITE SEX BLOSSOM WITH MORE HAPPINESS AND LES S PAIN.BULLYING AND DATING ABUSE THAT HAS BEC OME AN EVER GROWING PROBLEM WI […] CONVERSATIONS WITH MEN: RELATIONSHIP SURVIVAL & "THE MAMMALIAN WAY" April 21... 2010 ANOTHER SEGMENT WHERE I DISCUSS RELATIONSHIP ISSUES WITH WOMEN. Tune in... ESPECIALLY WHERE SEX CAN BECOME A FACTOR . ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT: IT S AUTHOR TIME AGAIN May 24. CONVERSATIONS WITH WOMEN: OPEN YOUR MINDS EYE TO FULL POTENTIAL May 18. MOST MEN HAVE NEVER HAD " A" GRADE S […] CONVERSATIONS WITH WOMEN: COPING WITH RELATIONSHIP SURVIVAL. it s usually wrapped up in their phobias.HOW DOES THE MAMMA LIAN WAY FIT IN? April 27. listen..themammalianway...IN A WORD. 20 10 You think women have issues with relationships.IN A WORD.

SPECAIL NEEDS KIDS VS. For men. WHERE C AN YOU GO TO WATCH ALL THE ILLEGAL VIDEO RECORDINGS OF CHILD OGRAPHY? AND A LEGA L LOOPHOLE READS YOU CAN. AND WHERE WERE THEY??? JUSTICE4CHILDREN August 6. CHEERLEAD ER. Do you ever just listen carefully to the words in some of his latest mus ic "Don t Pressure Me" well join us tonight with Gregory from Straight Talk to p onder and discuss many of the facts behinds MJ s death.com/_ylt=A0S […] JUSTICE4CHILDREN June 10. 2011 HOW MANY LIVES DO A BUDGET CUT COST? TONIGHT S SHOW IS A TRIBUTE TO THE MANY FAM ILIES WHO HAVE LOST EVERYTHING. EXECUTIONER A HUMAN. […] JUSTICE4CHILDREN May 14. Just wait until you hear men talk about men s issues with women. PAGEANT WINNER. 2011 JUSTICE IS A CONCEPT OF MORAL RIGHTNESS. BASED ON ETHICS.he Ma […] CONVERSATIONS WITH MEN: RELATIONSHIP SURVIVAL & "THE MAMMALIAN WAY" April 14. WHAT WENT WRONG? MJ the Man in the Mirror June 27. MISSISSIPPI. 2011 HAVE SEX WITH CHILDREN. SHOULD CHILDREN BE ON THE ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST? JUSTICE4CHILDREN July 16. A BROTHER. BUT DID SHE RECEIVE JUSTICE AND IF NOT. GEORGIA WHAT DO ALL OF THESE CHI LDREN HAVE IN COMMON? THE PICTURE OF INNOCENCE OR THE INNOCENT LOSS! FIND OUT WH AT THIS YOUNG PERSON WENT THROUGH AND HOW IT ALMOST COST US THE LOSS OF ANOTHER. LLC FIND OUT THE SERVICES THEY PROVIDE AN D HOW YOU CAN GET INVOLVED. GEORGIA!! WHA T IS A MANDATED REPORTER. ALABAMA. See you there. A FRIEND WHAT S A C HILD S LIFE WORTH??? A MOTHER S EMPTY ARMS. They continually violate "The Mammalian Way" and it burns them. 20 10 MORE RELATIONSHIP THERAPY: You think women have issues with relationships. MS. ALONG WITH THE PUNISHMENT OF THE BREACH OF SAID ETHICS CAYLEE ANTHONY IS GONE N OW. LLC JOIN US TO FIND OUT WHO AND WHAT THEY ARE AND THE SERVICES THEY HAVE FOR FAMILIES. MOST MEN HAVE NEVER HAD "A" GRADE SEX IN THEIR LIVES!! Ask questi ons or mak […] RSS Wake up Call JUSTICE4CHILDREN August 27. NO PROBLEM! BUT. JUSTICE4CHILDREN May 21. What is the truth. JASPER STEED OF AUTISM SMILES. JURY. http://rd s. JUSTICE4CHILDREN April 30. WHAT IF WORK IS A SCHOOL BUILDING FULL OF CHILDREN. GEORGIA. Did his music carry a m essage. KENTUCK Y . 2011 OUR GUEST IS THE CEO OF AUTISM SMILES. BECOME REHABILITATED. GO TO PRISON. 2011 WHAT IS THE COLOR OF ABUSE? LISTEN TO THE VOICES OF FULTON COUNTY. 2011 OUR GUEST TONIGHT IS MR. THAN COME BACK TO WO RK. 2011 JUDGE. SOMEONE S BABY. 2011 We miss him. TENNESEE. KIDS NOT IN THE CLICK. A FATHER S LOST DREAMS HOW DO YOU SA Y SORRY JUSTICE4CHILDREN July 23. Many theories out there. RATIONALITY. POPULAR KID IN SCHOOL.yahoo. UNCOOL KIDS. 2011 SMART KIDS. FAIRNESS. it s usuall y wrapped up in their phobias. FIND OUT HOW TO SURVIVE AND RISE ABOVE.

AUTISTIC CHILD IN THIS STATE. A PARENT. CHAMPION OF CHILDREN S RIGHTS. FIND OUT HOW SCHOOLS WILL TREAT A FRAGILE X. WHO HAS ALL THE ANTICIPATION OF BECOMING A TEACHER. TO PRACTICE WHAT WE WANT OUR CHILDREN TO LEARN. AN ADVOCATE.you tube. JULIE WORLEY WHY WHAT HAPPENED IN HER STATE. SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVOCATE WHO IS ALSO QUALIFIED TO DO DUE PROCESS CALL IN WITH YOUR QUESTIONS. 2011 WELL WE TOLDJAH. ARE THE Y STILL OF THE UNITED STATES. 2011 OUR GUEST TONIGHT IS REP.Comments . LET S TALK NEW MEXICO. 2011 TO HATE OR NOT TO HATE. SOME HAD IT COMING NOW THEY SCREAMING FOR H ELP. JUSTICE4CHILDREN January 15. 2011 IS LADY JUSTICE BLIND HOW MUCH IS A CHILD WORTH ARE JUDGES SELLING OUR CHILDREN? OUR GUEST TONIGHT IS SANDY FONZO. 2011 LET S TALK TEXAS. 2011 TONIGHT IS A MEET AMD GREET: FIND OUT FROM OUR GUEST MRS.com/watch?v=No1Z8KOeW7o SHE WITNESSED SOMETHING HORRIBLE AND HAS TO NOW FIG HT TO PROTECT HERSLF AND THE ANGELS WHO WERE HARMED. DIDN T STAY IN HER STATE.JUSTICE4CHILDREN April 16.Posts RSS . RICH V S HARDING WORKING AMERICANS. GET THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS AND MORE T ONIGHT JUSTICE4CHILDREN February 26. COLLEGE STUDENT. JUSTICE4CHILDREN March 12. THEY JUMPED ON THE BANDWAGON OF THE WICKED AND THERE IS NO TEA LEFT. JUSTICE4CHILDREN April 2. RSS . WE WILL BE DISCUSS ING HB916 TO BAN CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. LET S TALK ABOUT SHEREE DAVENPORT FIND OUT WHAT S GOING ON AND WHO THE GOING ON IS ABOUT. WHAT IS WRONG WITH WISCONSIN. 2011 OUR GUEST IS MELISSA MOONEY. WE SAW THIS COMING. JUSTICE4CHILDREN January 22. JUSTICE4CHILDREN January 29. MOTHER FORCED TO QUIT JOB TO HOME SCHOOL. NOW LEARN FROM THIS AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND FIG HT. JESSUP. EDUCATED. http://www. 2011 HOW DO YOU DESTROY A COUNTRY? HOW DO YOU KEEP AN UNEDUCATED WORKFORCE FOR MANY G ENERATIONS? HOW TO DEFEAT PARENTS? HOW MANY CHILDREN ARE BEATEN YEARLY IN THE UN ITED STATES ALONE WITH IMPUNITY? JOIN US TO FIND THESE ANSWERS OUT AND MORE ITS LIKE A JUNGLE SOMETIMES March 20. SAVE YOUR FUTURE AND YOUR CHILDREN. ALMA ALLEN FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS. A VERY BRAVE AND TALENTE D YOUNG LADY. RESTRAINED. SECLUDED THAN FORCED OUT OF SCHOOL. 2011 OUR GUEST IS A MOTHER FROM WISCONSIN. IS IT AL RIGHT TO WATCH AND SILENTLY CONDONE VIOLENCE? JUSTICE4CHILDREN January 8. 2011 TO RESTRAIN OR NOT TO RESTRAIN THIS IS THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION WE HAVE A SUR PRISE GUEST FIND OUT WHAT THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY SAYS DO THEY ENDORSE OR CONDONE FIND OUT WHAT THE LATEST NEW FAB IS IN RESTRAINING HUMAN BEINGS JUSTICE4CHILDREN April 9. 2011 TONIGHT IS A MEET AND GREET OUR GUEST IS MR. JUSTICE4CHILDREN March 19.

Search for:
RSS Abuse Feedom Live
abusefreedom live radio October 1, 2012
Tonight we will be having a special guest, author, Rosalie Hollingsworth, whose
daughter was kidnapped by the biological father and taken out of the country twi
ce. Tonight she will discuss this difficult journey and what she and her daughte
r endured and how she retrieved her daughter from the jungles of a foreign land.
Tonight!
abusefreedom live radio September 24, 2012
Today show is about Religous cults are they invading our churches,liste to Coral
Theill who has been tortured by the hands of her church and family
The Abuse Freedom Live Show September 19, 2012
William Windsor of Lawless America will be joining us on Tuesday, September 18,
2012, at 8:00 p.m. Don t miss it! Bill has been traveling and should be in Nevad
a. He is traveling across this great country and interviewing and collecting sto
ries of judicial corruption and the devestation it has caused across this nation
. For those of you interested in kn […]
abusefreedom live radio September 17, 2012
Today show is about Religous cults are they invading our churches,liste to Coral
Theill who has been tortured by the hands of her church and family
abusefreedom live radio September 9, 2012
Today show is about Religous cults are they invading our churches,liste to Coral
Theill who has been tortured by the hands of her church and family
AFU live host connie lee against child sex abuse August 30, 2012
Connie Lee well known advocate and leader against child sex abuse. Abuse Freedo
m will start exposing all of the ways the corrupt court are favoring men who mol
est children an then get the custody of the children who continue enduring the h
orror that no child should have to endure...
abusefreedom live radio August 20, 2012
Today show is about Religous cults are they invading our churches,liste to Coral
Theill who has been tortured by the hands of her church and family
The Abuse Freedom Live Show July 30, 2012
Attorney David Engler Meet David Engler, Esq., the lawyer from Trumbull County,
OHIO who is uncovering a multitude of crimes committed against children under th
e care of Trumbull County Children Services. David is taking a stand to protect
these children who are victims of our public agency and has multiple lawsuits fi
led against the agency. He is instrument […]
Abuse Freedom Live Show June 23, 2012
Eileen Lasher and Dr. Emad Tadros Interviewed Regarding “Kids for Cash” San Diego Fa
mily Law Court Crimes Eileen Lasher outspoken critic of the San Diego family cou
rts, joined them in the first interview. The second interview was shown in two s
egments. In the interview segment below, Lasher discussed her experiences with t
he misconduct of minor’s counsel att […]
The Abuse Freedom Live Show June 20, 2012
Tonight, June 19, 2012, on the Abuse Freedom Live Show, hosts Jane and Josie wil
l be interviewing guest, Kevin Arnett, of www.hiddenfromhistory.org. Telling the
Untold Story of the Genocide of Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. Kevin Annett alon
g with the Mohawk Nation in Ontario publicized on Nov 29,2011 that they had foun
d the human bones of a child. They state […]

Warnings by a Former CPS Agent: THE POWERFUL, SHOCKING TRUTH May 25, 2012
Warnings From a Former CPS Agent: A POWERFUL, COMPELLING, & SHOCKING REVELATION!
Join us this Thursday night Live at 8:00 p.m.as our exclusive guest will share
a very important message with YOU, the American people. This chilling yet compe
lling revelation will be shocking! Answering, all you wanted to know, and what e
veryone needs to know about the agen […]
Abuse Freedom s 66/34 Effect Show with Host Athena Phoenix April 29, 2012
Each week ABUSE FREEDOM UNITED provides a forum to where guests share informatio
n and ideas about how we can improve the way the courts and our government does
business to protect families. We encourage your participation, and invite liste
ners to call in and share their ideas.
AFU s 66/34 Effect Show With Host Athena Phoenix March 25, 2012
Each week ABUSE FREEDOM UNITED provides a forum to improve the justice system by
bringing reformation to the apathetic and corrupt divisions of our state and fe
deral governments.
Abuse Freedom s 66/34 Effect with Athena Phoenix March 18, 2012
GUESTS: (1) Mildred Muhammad, wife of the Beltway Sniper, Advocate for abused fa
milies. (2) Tynia Canada, Singer, Child Protection Advocate TOPIC: Hate crimes,
Health and Human Services Title IV-D programs that fund child abuse, fraud, and
profitably incite family court battles. Relevant Articles: "Suicide Brings Att
ention to Men s Rights Movemen […]
Abuse Freedom s 66/34 Effect With Host Athena Phoenix March 11, 2012
Guests: (1) Psychiatrist Dr. Emad Tadros (2) Tom Scales, Executive Director of V
oices Today, Author of "Terrible Things Happened to Me: A story of Violence and
Victory." TOPICS: Fraudulent credentials How to effectively tell your traumatic
story
66/34 Effect with Athena Phoenix March 7, 2012
GUESTS: (1) Richard Fine, Tax Payer Advocate (2) Dr. Emad Tadros (Brief appeara
nce, rescheduled for 3/11/2012) We will discuss how to improve government, the c
ourts, and how to cause systemic change to keep families safe.
Abuse Freedom Live Show With Host Jane Boyer March 5, 2012
Each week ABUSE FREEDOM UNITED provides a forum to improve the justice system by
bringing reformation to the apathetic and corrupt divisions of our state and fe
deral governments.
66/34 Effect with Athena Phoenix February 29, 2012
GUESTS: (1) Keith Harmon Snow, Investigative Reporter (2) Ada O. Smith, Film mak
er TOPIC: Child trafficking, Connecticut Family Courts, Judicial Confirmation, S
unny Kelly family court case We will discuss how to improve government, the cou
rts, and how to cause systemic change to keep families safe.
Abuse Freedom Live Show With Host Jane Boyer February 27, 2012
Each week ABUSE FREEDOM UNITED provides a forum to improve the justice system by
bringing reformation to the apathetic and corrupt divisions of our state and fe
deral governments.
66/34 Effect with Athena Phoenix February 22, 2012
GUESTS: (1) Denver CASA Exec. Director (2) Karen Anderson, CA Protective Parents
TOPICS: Improving the child welfare system, supervised visitation, scams in CA
s Access and Visitation programs. We will discuss how to improve government, th
e courts, and how to cause systemic change to keep families safe.

Top Clicks
members.familyrights.us/g…
protectingourchildrenfrom…
abanet.org/child/rclji/pl…
groups.yahoo.com/group/ge…
scjc.state.ny.us/Determin…
flds.ws
gabar.org/handbook/part_i…
nyu.edu/classes/keefer/Ev…
laws.findlaw.com/US/452/1…
avoiceforchildren.com/boo…
Top Posts
Information About the Child Protective Services Program of the Department of Hum
an Services
Something Every Parent Should Have - A How To Booklet- Never Trust Anyone From C
PS
Important Information by a Lawyer
Foster Parents Do Not Claim their Monthly Stimed from CPS as Income They Pay No
Taxes on This Money
CPS Victories for Parent s Rights May Help in Dealing with CPS
People Who Dilberately Make False Reports of Child Abuse - Written By Dan Weaver
Fourth Amendment Rights
Child Protection Services in Michagin Written by An Attorney
The Dirty Little Tricks CPS Doesn t Want You to Know
Georgia Defense Packet for Parents Who Have Had Their Children Stolen BY DFCS
Top Rated
Posts | Pages | Comments
All | Today | This Week | This Month
Every Parent Needs This Handbook, Feel Free to Print it and Use it. Make it Your
Bible to Fight CPS
5/5 (10 votes)
Social Workers getting paid extra per child taken from parents and placed into a
doption be in part motivation for the FLDS raid?
5/5 (7 votes)
S.C. DSS Fails Federal Child Welfare Standards
5/5 (5 votes)
Social Workers use this system to attack parents and steal children:
5/5 (5 votes)
Another Abduction By CPS When Will IT Stop????
5/5 (4 votes)
Protecting Our Children From CPS
Protecting Our Children From CPS
↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Top

Follow .Blog at WordPress. The INove Theme.com.

com loading .351 other followers Build a website with WordPress.Follow “How Child Protection Services Buys and Sells Our Children” Get every new post delivered to your Inbox. Join 2.