by Phyllis Schlafly November 5, 2010

When the liberals and the feminists, including Hillary Clinton, began saying the “village” should raise the child, most people recognized village as a metaphor for government. We’re now seeing how intrusive Big Government Nannyism really is.

State agencies operating under various names such as Child Protective Services (CPS) have been assigned the task of protecting kids from abuse or neglect by any adults, especially by their own parents. A new study casts doubt on the value of CPS.

Child Protective Services, which rushes into action based on anonymous tips, investigated more than three million cases of suspected child abuse in 2007. Researchers examined the records of 595 children nationwide alleged to be at similar high risk for abuse, and tracked them from ages 4 to 8.

The researchers concluded that CPS’s intervention did little or nothing to improve the lives of the children, and there was no difference between children in the families CPS investigated or did not investigate. The social scientists looked at all the factors known to increase the risk for abuse or neglect: social support, family functioning, poverty, caregiver education and depressive symptoms, plus child anxiety, depression and aggressive behavior.

Ads are provided by Google and are not selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum

The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act was passed by Congress in 1974, and about 45 states passed complementary state laws. Taxpayers’ money began to flow big time to the bureaucrats.

The research results were reported in the October issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. The report was accompanied by an editorial entitled “Child Protective Services Has Outlived its Usefulness.”

It argued that CPS should not be engaged in law enforcement. If it’s a crime, call the police; if it’s neglect, call a public health nurse; if it’s an unsuitable living situation, call the appropriate social services.

Unfortunately, the researchers did not look at the harm caused by CPS bureaucrats who arrive unannounced with the police, interfere with a functioning family, and often take the children away from their parents and turn them over to foster care. When taxpayer appropriations are voted next year by Congress and state legislatures, CPS bureaucrats should be required to demonstrate whether any good outweighs the harm.

Two cases involving Child Protective Services are now before the U.S. Supreme Court. The High Court has just agreed to take a case involving the interrogation of an elementary schoolchild at school by a CPS caseworker and a deputy sheriff about possible sexual abuse at home.

This is a Fourth Amendment case: Camreta and Alford v. Greene. Oregon investigators are appealing a lower court ruling that they violated a nine-year-old girl’s constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure when they interviewed her for two hours at school without a warrant, court order, parental consent, or exigent circumstances.

This case could have a significant impact nationwide. Unfortunately, some government agencies are more solicitous in guaranteeing constitutional due process to vicious criminals than to parents.

The other CPS case now before the Supreme Court, Los Angeles County v. Humphries, has already been briefed and argued. This case involves the constitutionality of the child abuse index, or list, maintained by Child Protective Services in California.

More than 800,000 people are now listed on California’s child abuse index. These listings are very hurtful to individuals since employers consult the list before hiring employees to work with children.

CPS puts people on this list from agency reports that are based on anonymous tips and suspicion, not proof. It’s mighty easy for a malicious wife or ex-wife to allege child abuse as part of her game plan to get child custody or increased child support.

The issue in this case is the fact that there are no procedures, no standards, and no criteria for a wrongly accused person to get his name off the child abusers index. The Supreme Court is reviewing the Ninth Circuit ruling that Craig Humphries (whom a court pronounced innocent of all charges) had a “nightmarish encounter” with the California system, and “There is no effective procedure for Humphries to challenge this listing.”

In 2006, Congress toyed with a plan to create a national child abuse registry. The plan was abandoned because of the unreliability of state lists and lack of due process. (blog.eagleforum.org)

The child abuse registry should not be confused with the sex offender registry, which lists only those who have been convicted of sex crimes. The child abuse registry puts men on the list who have never been proven guilty of anything or even charged with a crime, a punishment that is entirely contrary to our legal assumption of being innocent until proven guilty.

Humphries has been trying to clear his name for nine years. Congress should defund these abusive registries and we hope the Supreme Court declares them unconstitutional.

via Government Trampling on Constitutional Rights of Parents.

The GOP decided not to endorse Abramson after he notified the county Republicans in January that he was under investigation by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct.

In his letter, Abramson told the GOP executive committee that the majority of the charges for which he is under investigation by the judicial panel pertain to his incarcerating or threatening to incarcerate individuals for regularly and consistently failing to pay child support”.

In 2008, the Court of Appeals upheld the judicial commission’s decision to remove former Fulton County Family Court Judge David Jung from the bench for depriving litigants of fundamental rights and showing “a systematic disregard” of basic legal requirements, jailing five people, some of them without benefit of an attorney and some of them without the opportunity to be heard. All were found in contempt of court orders, most for failing to pay child support, some incarcerated for 180 days.

Abramson has been the family court judge for 10 years, initially appointed by former Gov. George Pataki in March 2000 to fill a vacancy. He was elected to a full 10-year term in November, 2000.

This isn’t the first complaint against Abramson before the judicial commission. A Feb. 10, 2005 letter of reference written on court stationery in support of Susan M. Kahn, owner of Supervised Visitations Inc. of Clifton Park was the subject of a complaint before the commission. However, that complaint was dismissed.

Abramson was the subject of a second complaint filed by fathers rights activist Kenneth Rohling who alleged that a court transcript had been doctored. The commission also dismissed that complaint. http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/122705AbramsonInsufficient.html

via North Country Gazette » Saratoga Family Court Judge Abramson Resigns.

Some interesting comments in this opinion piece.  I don’t agree, however, that the protests of Fathers4Justice are irresponsible.  They are in fact responsible for the issue to even get raised in the press and media.

OK, so men aren’t the best at conveying their views; just look at the actions of some members of the Fathers 4 Justice movement. Irresponsible behaviour such as throwing flour bombs in Parliament and storming television broadcasts merely helps to serve in the familial courts favour with regard to their decision-making. But when the government enforces such an anti-male bias in legislation what, in all their desperation, are men to do? How long will it be before we hear of yet another man ending his life and those of his children because of the injustices of the system?

Even excluding such acts of despair, the male suicide rate in the UK is significantly higher compared to that for women. Suicide rates for men amounted to approximately 18 per 100,000 population in 2008 (ONS, 2010), with females accounting for less at approximately 5 per 100,000. Aside from wrongful legislation, could this be because of the ‘put up and shut up’ culture we have adopted, whereby men are not meant to talk about their feelings and be devoid of any emotion?

Furthermore, the highest rates of male suicide are for those aged 15-44, the age group at which most divorces occur, and when adolescent males feel under the most psychological pressure. Research has shown that few men seek medical guidance or counselling prior to ending their lives, as opposed to the more pragmatic approach by women. Perhaps men feel they will be ostracised for expressing how they feel, or maybe they fear they will risk losing some warped notion of masculinity if they do so.

Unless some radical form of change takes place in the near future, the downward spiral of attitudes towards men is set to continue. It will only be a matter of time until male suicide rates multiply, male teachers surrender to bureaucracy, and we are reduced to an apartheid-style society where men have few or no rights.

via A crisis of masculinism | Varsity Online.

In every court, Benjamin Wyrembek prevailed, because he is the child’s rightful father. And every time he did, opposing attorneys filed more motions and appeals.

Media reports have emphasized the distress that the boy will surely suffer when he is removed from the only parents he has known. That distress will be heartbreaking for all, especially the child.

But let there be no mistake about the cause of that heartbreak. It is not Benjamin Wyrembek, but adoption attorneys who mistakenly believed that after enough time and expense he would give up his son.

There is a larger picture the media have overlooked. Every day, about 400,000 children in the United States need to be adopted. Millions more worldwide are warehoused in orphanages in countries such as China and Russia. They have no parents and get tragically little care.

These children are literally crying out for the love that good adoptive parents could give them. The great tragedy of the Wyrembek case is not only the effort to force adoption on a boy who didn’t need it; it’s also the loss of good adoptive parents by another child who did.

The Ohio Supreme Court did the right thing not only for Benjamin Wyrembek, but also for countless other parents who face losing their children the way he almost did.

And it did the right thing for all the children throughout the world who do not have the priceless resource that Mr. Wyrembek’s son has: a father who loves him.

Robert Franklin is a board member of Fathers & Families, a Boston-based organization that seeks reform of family court proceedings.

via toledoblade.com — The Blade ~ Toledo Ohio.

Received these summaries and links for CPS caselaw with regard to qualified immunity that many who visit this site may find useful:

CPS Case Law

<http://vlex.com/vid/35423970> Beltran v. Santa Clara County, 514 F.3d 906,
(9th Cir. 2008)
Beltrans sued two caseworkers under 42 U.S.C. ‘ 1983, charging
constitutional violations in removing child from their custody and
attempting to place him under the supervision of the state by fabricating
evidence. Court overruled Doe v. Lebbos, and reversed the district court’s
ruling that defendants were entitled to absolute immunity.

<http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/305/305.F3d.660.00-4230.html>
Brokaw v. Mercer County, 235 F.3d 1000, (7th Cir. 2000)
In 1983, three-year old A.D. Brokaw was removed from her parents’ home based
on allegations of child neglect. After she turned eighteen, she sued her
paternal grandfather, aunt, and uncle, alleging that they conspired to
violate her constitutional rights by reporting false claims of child
neglect. A.D. also sued the various state actors and agencies involved in
removing her from her parents’ custody. The district court held that A.D.’s
suit was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because, in effect, A.D. was
challenging the validity of the state removal proceedings. The Eleventh
Circuit reversed and remanded.

<http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/189/189.F3d.808.97-15385.html>
Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999)
“This case involves whether a social worker and a police officer were
entitled to qualified immunity, for a coerced entry into a home to
investigate suspected child abuse, interrogation of a child, and strip
search of a child, conducted without a search warrant and without a special
exigency.” Can you guess what the answer was? “An unlawful entry or search
of a home does not end when the government officials walk across the
threshold. It continues as they impose their will on the residents of the
home in which they have no right to be.”

<http://www.supremecourt.nm.org/pastopinion/VIEW/01ca-065.html> Chavez v.
Board of County Commissioners, 2001-NMCA-065, New Mexico Court of Appeals
(2001)
Defendants are deputy sheriffs with the Curry County Sheriff’s Department,
who were called to assist two social workers from the Children, Youth &
Families Department on a “child welfare check” at Plaintiff’s home.
Plaintiff’s son had not been attending elementary school. Thus, one reason
for the visit to Plaintiff’s home was to investigate suspected truancy or
educational neglect. Held: “At the time of entry into Plaintiff’s home, it
was well-settled that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
prohibited unreasonable searches and seizures and was intended to protect
the sanctity of an individual’s home and privacy.”

<http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/103/103.F3d.1123.95-3528.html>
Croft v. Westmoreland County Children and Youth Servs., 103 F.3d 1123 (3d
Cir. 1997)
Holding that “a state has no interest in protecting children from their
parents unless it has some reasonable and articulable evidence giving rise
to a reasonable suspicion that a child has been abused or is in imminent
danger of abuse.”

<http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/214/214.F3d.952.html> Doe v.
Gooden, 214 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2000)
School district officials can be liable under 1983 if they are deliberately
indifferent to acts committed by a teacher that violate a student’s
constitutional rights.

<http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/707/707.F2d.582.81-2369.html>
Franz v. United States, 707 F 2d 582, US Ct App (1983)
“The undesirability of cultural homogenization would lead us to oppose
efforts by the state to assume a greater role in children’s development,
even if we were confident that the state were capable of doing so
effectively and intelligently.” A brilliant analysis of the fundamental
right to be free of unwarranted state interference between the child-parent
bond, in this case stemming from the Witness Protection Program.

<http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/891/891.F2d.1087.88-5792.html>
Good v. Dauphin County Soc. Servs. for Children and Youth, 891 F.2d 1087,
(3d Cir. 1989)
“[P]hysical entry into the home is the chief evil against which the …
Fourth Amendment is directed,” the Court explained, while adding: “It is a
‘basic principle of Fourth Amendment law’ that searches and seizures inside
a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.” No qualified
immunity claim to be found here.

<http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/427/427.F3d.525.04-2474.html>
Heartland Acad. Cmty. Church v. Waddle, 335 F.3d 684, (8th Cir.2003)
Waddle, as Chief Juvenile Officer for the Second Circuit of Missouri,
effected the removal of 115 boarding students from Heartland Christian
Academy . Waddle had obtained ex parte probable-cause state-court orders to
remove some of the boarding students, there were no orders of any kind to
remove many of the students who were taken from the school. This case is
noted for its brilliant analysis of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity,
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and immunity as an officer of a juvenile court.
The court held that: “any single violation of Heartland’s federal
constitutional rights in this case would be sufficient to sustain
Heartland’s claim for injunctive relief under ‘ 1983.”

<http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/410/410.F3d.1221.04-2108.html>
Jones v. Hunt, 410 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2005)
No qualified immunity in this ‘ 1983 action for alleged violations of Fourth
Amendment rights arising from girl’s in-school seizure by a deputy sheriff
and s Social Worker Supervisor for the New Mexico Children, Youth, and
Families Department (“CYFD”). “We conclude that the Fourth Amendment
violation as alleged in this case is both obvious and outrageous.”

<http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/767/767.F2d.651.84-4403.html>
Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651, (9th Cir. 1985)
“Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent establish that a parent has a
constitutionally protected liberty interest in the companionship and society
of his or her child. The state’s interference with that liberty interest
without due process of law is remediable under section 1983.”

<http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/103/103.F3d.144.95-1454.html>
Lopkof v. Slater, 103 F.3d 144 (10th Cir. 1996) (Unpublished)
Defendants do not dispute that the law was clearly established that a
warrantless search of a private residence is per se unreasonable under the
Fourth Amendment unless one of “a few specifically established and
well-delineated exceptions” applies. Defendants maintain that because they
had “received specific information questioning the safety of children,” they
acted in an objectively reasonable manner when they entered Lopkoff’s
private residence. Wrong, and no qualified immunity for these officers.

<http://lawsuit.liftingtheveil.org/76819.htm> Loudermilk v. Arpaio, 2007
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76819 (D. Ariz. September 27, 2007)
With respect to Plaintiffs’ claim based on violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment, parents and children have a constitutional right to live together
without governmental interference and will not be separated without due
process of law except in emergencies. Motion to dismiss by CPS worker and
others who coerced entry into home denied.

<http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/237/237.F3d.1101.98-56561.html>
Mabe v. San Bernardino, 237 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001)
Section 1983 creates a cause of action against any person who, acting under
color of state law, violates the constitutional rights of another person.
Whether reasonable cause to believe exigent circumstances existed in a given
situation, “and the related questions, are all questions of fact to be
determined by a jury.” Hence, no immunity for social worker under 42 U.S.C.
1983.

NEW!  <http://vlex.com/vid/38363977> Michael v. Gresbach, (7th Cir. 2008)
The court held that: “a reasonable child welfare worker would have known
that conducting a search of a child’s body under his clothes, on private
property, without consent or the presence of any other exception to the
warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, is in direct violation of the
child’s constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches.” No
qualified immunity for this CPS caseworker! The court also held that the
state statute that allowed for “investigations” on private property without
a search warrant was itself unconstitutional as applied.

<http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/191/191.F3d.1306.97-1477.97-1476.h
tml%20> Malik v. Arapahoe County Dept. of Soc. Servs.191 F.3d 1306, (10th
Cir. 1999)
“The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials from
individual liability under 42 U.S.C. ‘ 1983 for actions taken while
performing discretionary functions, unless their conduct violates “clearly
established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person
would have known.” Court also held that: “it was clearly established law
that, except in extraordinary circumstances, a parent has a liberty interest
in familial association and privacy that cannot be violated without adequate
pre-deprivation procedures.”

<http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/989/989.F2d.289.92-2323.html>
Norfleet v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Servs., 989 F.2d 289 (8th Cir. 1993)
Court denies qualified immunity to the Human Services Director and
caseworker involved because the state obligation to provide adequate medical
care, protection, and supervision with respect to children placed in foster
care was well established as of 1991.

<http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/77/77.F3d.707.95-3232.html>
Parkhurst v. Trapp, 77 F.3d 707 (3rd Cir. 1996)
The defendants attempt to avoid the imposition of summary judgment by
arguing that, even if their conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, qualified
immunity should shield them from liability. Qualified immunity is available
to state actors in Section 1983 suits if those actors reasonably believed
that their conduct was lawful. However, a good faith belief in the legality
of conduct is not sufficient. Held: No qualified immunity.

<http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/118/118.F3d.1306.94-17185.94-16508
.html> Ram v. Rubin, 118 F.3d 1306 (9th Cir. 1997)
Holding “a parent has a constitutionally protected right to the care and
custody of his children and he cannot be summarily deprived of custody
without notice and a hearing except when the children are in imminent
danger.” No qualified immunity for social worker who removed child not in
imminent danger.

<http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/487/487.F3d.1288.05-16071.html>
Rogers v. County of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288 (9th Cir. 2007)
Court held: “the rights of families to be free from governmental
interference and arbitrary state action are also important. Thus, we must
balance, on the one hand, the need to protect children from abuse and
neglect and, on the other, the preservation of the essential privacy and
liberty interests that families are guaranteed under both the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments of our Constitution.” Section 1983 case reinforces
that removal of children from home by caseworker absent either a warrant or
exigent circumstances violates those rights, and therefore no qualified
immunity applies to caseworker.

<http://court.osdir.com/F3/328/328.F3d.1230.html> Roska v. Peterson, 328
F.3d 1230, (10 Cir. 2003)
Holding no immunity for caseworkers who entered a home lacking either
exigency or a warrant, and finding constitutional protection in the right to
maintain a family relationship, Court held: “the law is now clearly
established that, absent probable cause and a warrant or exigent
circumstances, social workers may not enter an individual’s home for the
purpose of taking a child into protective custody.”

<http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/193/193.F3d.581.97-9488.97-9554.19
98.html> Tennenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, (2d Cir. 1999)
“We affirm the judgment insofar as it holds that the medical examination
violated the Tenenbaums’ and Sarah’s procedural due-process rights and
Sarah’s Fourth Amendment rights and awards damages therefor. . . We
conclude, however, that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the
defendants’ removal of Sarah from school was contrary to the procedural
requirements of the Due Process Clause and to Sarah’s right to be free from
unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment.” The Missouri Bar has an
informative  <http://www.mobar.org/mobarforms/courtsDetail.aspx?item=658>
Courts Bulletin describing the case.

<http://vlex.com/vid/38325978> Turner v. Houseman, Docket: 07-6108 (10th
Cir. 2008) (Unpublished)
“It was clearly established, at least two years before the events in
question, that absent probable cause and a warrant or exigent circumstances,
neither police nor social workers may enter a person’s home without a valid
consent, even for the purpose of taking a child into custody, much less to
conduct a search. It was also established that the warrantless seizure and
detention of a person without probable cause or exigent circumstances, as
alleged in Turner’s petition, is unreasonable.”

<http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/202/202.F3d.1126.html> Wallis v.
Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000)
“In cases of alleged child abuse, governmental failure to abide by
constitutional constraints may have deleterious long-term consequences for
the child and, indeed, for the entire family. Ill-considered and improper
governmental action may create significant injury where no problem of any
kind previously existed.”

<http://lawsuit.liftingtheveil.org/Walsh_v_Erie.html> Walsh v. Erie County
Dep’t of Job & Family Servs., 240 F. Supp. 2d 731, (N.D. Ohio 2003)
“Despite the Defendants’ exaggerated view of their powers, the Fourth
Amendment applies to them, as it does to all other officers and agents of
the state whose requests to enter, however benign or well-intentioned, are
met by a closed door. . . Any agency that expects to send its employees
routinely into private homes has a fundamental obligation to ensure that
those employees understand the constitutional limits on their authority.”

<http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/901/901.F2d.387.89-3253.html>
Weller v. Dept of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, (4th Cir. 1990)
“Substantive due process does not categorically bar the government from
altering parental custody rights.” What I find interesting about this case
is that it was brought pro se, and that he sued a lot more people than I am.

<http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/119/119.F3d.1303.95-4056.html>
Whisman v. Rinehart, 119 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir. 1997)
Whismans filed this action against juvenile officers and social workers,
claiming they violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights of familial
association, denying plaintiffs due process of law. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, contending that plaintiffs’ claims were not actionable
under 42 U.S.C. ‘ 1983. Guess again!

<http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/211/211.F3d.913.98-30267.html>
Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge, 211 F.3d 913, (5th Cir. 2000)
Holding that a “childs right to family integrity is concomitant to that of a
parent. No qualified immunity for police officers who removed young child in
this section 1983 action.
–

Dennis Lawrence
http://vimeo.com/channels/112287 MPR Video Channel
www.miparentalrights.ning.com <http://www.miparentalrights.ning.com/>
Social Network

miparentalrights@gmail.com E-mail Address
616-848-0664

These two cases were news because the fathers won custody.  At the end of the article there is a reference to statistics that show how few fathers are awarded sole custody, and astoundingly how many are not awarded even a minimum of access to their children.

The Nebraska Court of Appeals recently affirmed two Lincoln County divorce cases where judges gave primary custody of the couple’s children to the father after removing custody from the mothers.

In both cases Lincoln County District Judge Donald Rowlands found that permanent custody should be placed with the fathers in the best interests of the children.

Family law statistics show that sole custody for fathers is awarded less than ten percent of the time. The latest statistics indicate that forty percent of all child custody cases allowed no custody for fathers, barring them from both visitation and access rights.

via North Platte Nebraska’s favorite newspaper – The North Platte Bulletin.