This issue always gets debated, and then just dropped.

With attention fully on the Vikings stadium issue, a bill that would change child custody proceedings for divorcing parents in Minnesota is quietly inching its way closer to the governor’s desk.

The latest version of HF322 would simply increase the presumed time each divorcing parent would get with his or her kids from 25 percent to 35 percent. (The remaining 30 percent of time would be figured out through mediation or divorce proceedings.) The Senate held a second reading of the bill Monday.

Rep. Peggy Scott, R-Andover, had initially authored the bill with more complex reforms that would affect the calculations of child support payments. She also wanted to create a presumption of true shared custody — at 45.1 percent for each parent. The bill also included a new concept for Minnesota law – virtual parenting time — and would have required courts to consider the use of wireless and video technology to help children remain connected to both of their parents. A version of her bill with these provisions passed the House last month by an 80-53 vote.

Those concepts don’t exist in the bill before the Senate. While Scott said that was somewhat disappointing, she would be happy with the passage of a bill that would take an incremental step toward shared custody. The percentages in law are just starting points for negotiations. But Scott said she felt 25 percent is too low, and encourages parents to fight too much in divorce proceedings to claim the remaining time with their children. A presumption of shared custody, she argued, would compel more constructive negotiations.

Not everyone agrees. In committee hearings, opponents argued that a presumption of shared custody is unrealistic and potentially harmful if it requires children to ping-pong back and forth between parents too much. They argued that a move toward shared custody might be easier on parents, but might not necessarily be in the best interests of their kids.

I notice that a lot of attorneys don’t see and increase.

CHICAGO, May 8, 2012 — /PRNewswire/ – This Mother’s Day, it appears that an increasing number of moms will be setting aside time to sign child support and alimony checks.   Overall, 56% of the nation’s top divorce attorneys say that they have seen an increase in the number of mothers paying child support during the past three years, while 47% also note a rise in women being responsible for alimony throughout the same time period, according to a recent survey of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML).

“The court system always ends up reflecting changes in our society and this is certainly the case with issues regarding who pays child support and alimony,” said Ken Altshuler, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.  “As more women achieve success on their career paths, they are also finding themselves increasingly responsible for financial obligations during and after the divorce process.”

In all, 56% of AAML members cited an increase in mothers who pay child support, while 44% said no change, and there was not an observed decrease.   Additionally, 47% have noticed an increase in the number of women paying alimony, while 53% said no change.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/08/4474906/more-women-paying-child-support.html#storylink=cpy

Another tragedy brought to you from the divorce courts of America.  If divorce and custody issues were handled from the perspective of parental rights to children, instead of best interest, these kinds of events would be fewer, since there would be less opportunity for enmity to escalate.

(Reuters) – A man California prosecutors say shot his ex-wife and seven other people to death in a Seal Beach hair salon in revenge over a child custody dispute was charged on Friday with first degree murder in their deaths.

Scott Evans Dekraai, 42, who is accused of carrying out the largest mass murder in the history of Orange County, was also charged with a single count of attempted murder, Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas told a news conference in Santa Ana.

The lone survivor of Wednesday’s shooting rampage at Salon Meritage, 73-year-old Harriet Stretz, remains in critical condition at a hospital in nearby Long Beach.

An emotional Rackauckas announced he would seek the death penalty against Dekraai, who he said was targeting former wife Michelle Fournier, a stylist at Salon Meritage, in the shooting rampage.

“There are some crimes that are so depraved, so callous, so malignant, that there is only one punishment that will fit the crime,” Rackauckas said. “When a person in a case such as this goes on a rampage and kills innocent people in an indiscriminate bloody massacre, I will seek the death penalty.”

Dekraai made an initial court appearance on Friday afternoon, wearing a yellow Orange County Jail jumpsuit and handcuffs and shackled at the waist as he sat in a caged area.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Erick Larsh agreed to a request by Dekraai’s lawyer, Robert Curtis, to postpone the arraignment until November 28 so Curtis can assemble a defense team.

Curtis also asked the judge to order to ensure that Dekraai was given his medications, including two anti-psychotic drugs. Larsh said he could only order jail doctors to “do what is appropriate” for Dekraai’s medical conditions.

‘I HATE YOU!’

As Dekraai was being taken out of court, a woman in the audience shouted “I hate you! I hate you!” toward his back. Another man clutched a picture to his chest.

Prosecutors say Dekraai, who divorced Fournier, 48, in 2007 and was still battling her in court over custody of their young son, wanted revenge when he stormed into Salon Meritage and began shooting.

The former couple had been in court over the child custody issues on Tuesday and Rackauckas said the hearing apparently “didn’t go very well” for Dekraai. He said Dekraai and Fournier had argued over the phone on the morning of the rampage.

“We believe that the defendant committed this unimaginable act of violence because he wanted to kill his ex-wife over a custody dispute over their 8-year-old son,” Rackauckas said. “He was willing to end any life in his path, and he did.”

via Accused Seal Beach gunman sought revenge: prosecutor | Reuters.

Glad to see Dear Amy sticking up for fathers.  Unfortunately, what this father is experiencing happens everyday, in the entire western world.  The political forces that are invested in the “mothers first” movement are simply too powerful for any progress to be made.  All a father can do is to know his rights, hire a good lawyer, and spend lots of money making sure his child doesn’t grow up forgetting who he is, due to the perfidious behavior of a truly selfish, self-absorbed mommy.

By Amy Dickinson ,QMI Agency

DEAR AMY: My longtime fiancee and I split up three months ago. It was her choice to split. We have a 20-month-old baby, and we are having a major disagreement about “visitation.”

The fact that a parent has “visitation” at all should be a thing of the past.

I am a father who took parental leave for three months to help raise our baby, and I have been a very involved father since her birth.

My ex and I work shift work on opposite shifts. My ex would rather send our baby to day care than have me take care of her. The day care shift my ex wants for our daughter would be from late afternoon to 10:30 p.m.

What do you think of the prospect of a 20-month-old being in day care, versus being with a parent?

My ex thinks our baby won’t fit in at school if she doesn’t attend day care. I understand the importance of her social development but not between the hours of dinner, bath and bedtime.

I grew up in a split family where I only saw my father every other weekend, and I don’t want that for my child. I truly believe that setup is outdated and fathers should have more rights! What say you? — Frustrated Father

DEAR FATHER: I agree with you on every front.

It is in the best interest of the child to spend as much time as possible with both parents, when both parents are committed, loving and involved — as you obviously are.

Parental care is preferable to day care, especially given the scenario you present in which a toddler would be away from home during dinner, evening, bath and bedtime.

Your child’s pro-social development can be encouraged through playgroups with other parents and toddlers and, later, a nursery school.

Your ex is using this as an excuse to deny your parental rights — and it’s absurd. You need to mediate a common-sense solution — one that is firmly focused on the child’s needs.

You could achieve this working with a mediator if your ex were being reasonable, but you should see a lawyer all the same.

I agree with you that the assumption that the child belongs with the mother with paternal “visitation” is an outmoded model, and I think the courts are moving slowly to recognize this.

via Dad stands up for his parental rights | Life | Toronto Sun.

Most fathers new to the divorce scene have no clue as to just how precarious their relationship with their own children really is.  It can be stripped from them by the stroke of a judges pen, just because mommy checked some little box on a form that said there was abuse in the home.  They don’t get that the assumption is that it is the father who is guilty of abuse, when as often as not, it is in fact the mother herself who is really the abusive and manipulative one.

Advocates explain that the leverage gained by a divorcing spouse who falsely accuses her spouse of abusing children or herself leads to a denial of due legal process to the victim of those lies.

September 04, 2011 /24-7PressRelease/ — The divorce process presents tremendous challenges for spouses who face questions about parental fitness or financial improprieties. One issue frequently raised by a spouse is serious accusations of domestic violence followed by petitions for restraining orders. Even if the abuse claim is shown to have been backed by false accusations, tremendous damage to an innocent person’s reputation may have already occurred.

Because spousal or child abuse claims are most frequently leveled against husbands by wives, fathers’ rights groups have sought help from Florida legislators to create legal consequences for those make false accusations in divorce cases. Advocates explain that the leverage gained by a spouse who falsely accuses her spouse of abusing children or herself leads to a denial of due legal process to the victim of those lies.

One national model for reform is the Partner Violence Reduction Act, which seeks to better distinguish the consequences of an allegation from a judicial finding, while making existing domestic violence laws more gender-inclusive. The most important goal seen by many is reducing the incentive for abuse of the legal process, because too many participants in family law disputes recognize that such allegations can be particularly powerful in the divorce context.

via Florida Fathers’ Rights Update: Legal Reforms for False Abuse Claims? – U.S. Politics Today – News Media Monitoring.

Recently in the online magazine, Slate, appeared an article about Paternal Alienation Syndrome (PAS).  Many, many fathers can testify that this type of thing is common practice.  I’m usually not very sympathetic to any of these syndrome labels, since the labels themselves lead to so much abuse and insanity in the psychiatric field.  But what the writer of this article seems to miss is that when one parent consciously works to alienate a child from the father, she is committing a serious crime against the happiness and over all health of the child.   I believe it should be treated as a serious crime by the courts, not just something that divorcing parents do.  Most of the time, the father bends over backward to not say derogatory things, either to the child, or even to the judge in court, about the mother.  However, the same can not be said of mothers, as anyone who has spent any time in court knows.

The most worrisome aspect of the legal fight over parental alienation syndrome may be that it divides supporters and opponents along strict gender lines: As a rule, this is classed as a women’s sickness alleged by men. Fathers’ rights groups are not solely to blame for the fact that an entire “disease” is predicated on the notion that women are lying liars; the inventor of the syndrome can take responsibility for that. But no hypothesis so rooted in gender bias should be credited by medical science. And because evidence of PAS is so frequently offered to counter maternal allegations of abuse, the experts testifying about PAS can be aiding and abetting a system that takes children from abused mothers and hands them right back to abusive fathers. Once again, this doesn’t mean that some parents don’t alienate their children in a divorce. It means that PAS is now used to discredit women whenever they claim abuse.

Much of the blame for the biased history of PAS can be laid at the feet of its originator, Dr. Richard Gardner, who developed the theory—from his own practice and without clinical studies—of mothers who foster hatred for their children’s father as a ”powerful weapon” to grab custody for themselves. This wasn’t a theory born of objective empirical observation. It was a campaign against mothers rooted in the idea that they regularly lie and then “brainwash” their children into lying about paternal abuse. Because of Gardner’s gender-freighted conclusions, it was probably inevitable that men, in the form of fathers’ rights groups, would seize upon the battle to legitimize PAS. One of its most famous spokesmen became Alec Baldwin, who wrote practically a whole book on the subject in 2008, arguing paradoxically that corrupt judges and the courts have too much power over custody disputes and that by recognizing PAS, the courts could make the whole child-custody process more fair. (Here is Baldwin describing PAS as something women mainly do to men.)

Supporters of PAS argue largely from personal experience, and their stories are often compelling. But the theory of PAS is not recognized as valid by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, or the American Medical Association. And the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges has published guidelines for custody courts clarifying that “the theory positing the existence of ‘PAS’ has been discredited by the scientific community. Any testimony that a party to a custody case suffers from the syndrome or ‘parental alienation’ should therefore be ruled inadmissible and/or stricken from the evaluation report.”

via “Parental alienation syndrome”: It’s not a real disease, but some people want it to be. – By Dahlia Lithwick – Slate Magazine.

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.

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.

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