It is one thing to promote homosexual rights.  It is an entirely different thing to force parents to advocate for those rights.  Apparently the courts in Britain fail to see this point.

In a landmark judgment, handed down on Monday 28th February, the High Court has suggested that Christians with traditional views on sexual ethics are unsuitable as foster carers, and that homosexual ‘rights’ trump freedom of conscience in the UK.

The Judges stated that Christian beliefs on sexual ethics may be ‘inimical’ to children, and they implicitly upheld an Equalities and Human Rights Commission submission that children risk being ‘infected’ by Christian moral beliefs.

Today’s judgment strongly affirms homosexual rights over freedom of conscience and leaves the Johns currently unable to foster a child as desired, despite their proven track record as foster parents.

There now appears to be nothing to stop the increasing bar on Christians who wish to adopt or foster children but who are not willing to compromise their beliefs. The summary contained in the judgment sends out the clear message that Christian ethical beliefs are potentially harmful to children and that Christian parents with mainstream Christian views are not suitable to be considered as potential foster parents as this does not accord with diversity and equality policies.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXAW42gyfek

The Johns are being represented by the Christian Legal Centre.

via High Court suggests Christian beliefs harmful to children.

The problem with this article, and with all these so called joint custody bills is this provision for exceptions in the case of domestic violence.  This would be fine if it weren’t so easy to lie and create a domestic violence allegation that is treated as if it were true.  It is a weapon that is commonly used in many divorces in order to obviate any chance at joint custody.

“We want to make sure we understand all the nuance, so that in the bill we clarify as many of those things as possible to avoid additional conflict for divorcing couples.”

One key concern is domestic violence, which the bill addresses head-on. “Every bill we’ve introduced makes domestic abuse an exception,” Olson has said numerous times. “No, you don’t qualify for shared parenting in that case.”

via Backer sees hope at last for joint-custody legislation | StarTribune.com.

It will be interesting to see how this is handled.  It is possible that he has a civil case against the biological father’s estate. He may also have a case against the attorney who represented him for malpractice.  Historically, however, the presumption of paternity of the husband trumps everything else.  So just because it is obvious he wasn’t the father, nevertheless, the courts may decide to leave this case alone.

LOS ANGELES – A longtime friend of Sam Kinison said Thursday that he recently obtained DNA testing shows the late comedian fathered a daughter with his ex-wife and that he hopes the revelation will free him from years of unpaid child support penalties.Comic Carl La Bove filed a petition Thursday to try to invalidate a nearly 13-year-old agreement requiring him to make payments for the girl, who is now 21 years old.

As of 2009, La Bove owed nearly $188,000 in back child support, according to a statement filed with his petition.The debt has left La Bove without a driver’s license, a passport and shoddy credit, he said.But he said any animosity he felt toward Kinison for sleeping with his now ex-wife during Kinison’s hard-charging heyday in the late 1980s is gone.

Success is not guaranteed, said Michael McCormick, executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers & Children, which is aiding La Bove in his case. The 52-year-old comic will have to show that he was coerced into signing the 1998 agreement.

In his court filings, he claims he was not fully informed of his rights before signing the agreement. In an interview, he said that his divorce from his ex-wife took six years and that his attorney never suggested he challenge the paternity of the child, even though his then-wife had told him that Kinison was the girl’s dad.

via Kinison friend says comic fathered child – Yahoo! News.

Fatherhood by Conscription: Nonconsensual Insemination and the Duty of Child SupportMichael J. HigdonUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville – College of LawFebruary 14, 2011

Abstract:

Nathaniel, was a California teenager who became a father in 1995. The mother of Nathaniel’s child was named Ricci, and at the time of conception, she was thirty-four years old. Nathaniel, however, was merely fifteen. Although Nathaniel admitted to having sex with Ricci voluntarily about five times, the fact that he was under sixteen years of age at the time made it legally impossible for him to consent to sexual intercourse. In other words, under California law, Nathaniel was not only a new father, but was also a victim of statutory rape. Nonetheless, in a subsequent action for child support, the court held that Nathaniel was liable for the support of the child who was born as a result of his rape. According to the court, “Victims have rights. Here, the victim also has responsibilities.”

via SSRN-Fatherhood by Conscription: Nonconsensual Insemination and the Duty of Child Support by Michael Higdon.

A FATHERS’ rights campaigner planned a gunpowder plot to gain publicity for his cause, a court heard yesterday.

Matthew Lloyd Starmore, 31, of Berthon Road, Little Mill, was arrested on October 30, 2009, after police found ammunition and gunpowder at the Newport guest house where he was living, Cardiff Crown Court was told.

They also found a notebook in Starmore’s room, which talked about the start of a nation-wide campaign which would see “the most dramatic and climactic and most hard-hitting series of events to hit Wales since World War Two.”

The book also talked about “shutting down some of the city’ most fundamental necessities, pulling emergency services and police tactile units from far and further afield,” and contained references to Newport’s Transporter Bridge, Father’s For Justice and reforms about how fathers get access to their children.

Starmore denies three counts of possessing explosives and ammunition including gunpowder, 24 rounds, and 108 bullet heads. He also denies dishonestly receiving these items knowing or believing they had been stolen.

Richard Griffiths, prosecuting, said police went to the Corporation Road guest house to arrest Starmore’s co-defendant David Hodge for dishonesty offences when they found the explosive material in Hodge’s room.

read full source article

In this case, we see a good reason to never ever call 911 unless it is a serious medical emergency.  This man is being punished by a state gone insane.  He is now in prison, yet, he did nothing even remotely wrong.  His mother is an idiot for trusting the police and the system.  The judge and the prosecutor in this case are evil.  The ex wife, who was interfering with visitation should be in prison, not Brian Aitken.

Aitken’s legal troubles began in January 2009, when he drove to his parents’ house to pick up some of his belongings. He had grown distraught over tensions with his ex-wife, who according to Aitken had been refusing to let him see his son. When Aitken visited his parents’ house, his mother, Sue Aitken, grew worried about his mental state. In an interview with a New Jersey radio program last week, she said she works with children who have mental health problems, and she has always been taught to call police as a precaution when someone appears despondent and shows any sign that he might harm himself. Concerned about her son, she called 911 but then thought better of it and hung up the phone. The police responded anyway. When they arrived at her home, Sue Aitken told them her concerns about her son, and the police called Brian Aitken, who was then en route to Hoboken, on his cell phone. They asked him to turn around and come back to his parents’ house. He complied.It was there that the police confronted Aitken. Although they determined he wasn’t a threat to himself or anyone else, they searched his car, where they found his handguns. They were locked, unloaded, and stored in the trunk, as federal and New Jersey law require for guns in transport. The police arrested Aitken anyway, charging him with unlawful possession of a weapon.To buy a gun in New Jersey, you must go through a laborious process to obtain a “purchaser’s permit.” But that permit doesn’t entitle you to possess a gun. A few select groups of people, mostly off-duty police officers and security personnel, can obtain carry permits. But anyone else with a gun is presumed to be violating state law and must defend against the charge of illegal gun possession by claiming one of the state’s exemptions.

via Brian Aitken’s Mistake – Reason Magazine.

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.

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.