Bill Bowen's documentary Innocence Destroyed about kids murdered while in custody of CPS is powerful
September 28, 8:39 AMAlbany CPS and Family Court ExaminerDaniel WeaverPrevious
Hundreds of children die every year in the custody of Child Protective Services. That's not something the general public is aware of. But that lack of awareness will hopefully end this winter when the full length documentary, Innocence Destroyed, is released.
Innocence Destroyed is not being produced by a half-witted conspiracy theorist but by former firefighter and federal law enforcement officer, Bill Bowen. Bowen, as you can see in the shorter version of the film he has posted on YouTube and which I have embedded below, is intelligent and articulate and just the sort of man needed to produce such a documentary. When you listen to Bowen, you instinctively know that here is a man you can trust--here is a man who tells the truth.
If the short version is any indication of what the full length version will be like, then this film should be entered into competition at Sundance, Slamdance and other film festivals. It is incredibly professional, and the original musical score, particularly Adriana's Theme by Steve Berkowitz is gorgeous.
But behind the beautiful music is the ugly reality, so ugly the movie is not recommended for anyone under sixteen, of children being tortured and murdered while in the care of the very people who are supposed to protect children, Child Protective Services. Particularly difficult to watch are some of the autopsy photos.
The film opens with a heartrending interview with Tausha Cram, mother of Adriana Cram, the subject of the movie's theme song. Tausha did not even find out her daughter had been murdered until a month after her death and then found out that she was murdered and buried in Mexico--that's correct, not New Mexico, but Mexico.
Earlier Tausha had turned to Child Protective Services for help in obtaining insurance and medicine for her daughter's medical condition. Instead of helping her, CPS took her daughter into custody and charged Tausha with medical neglect. Rather than placing the child with her aunt as promised, CPS placed Adriana with an aunt and uncle of Tausha's abusive partner, whom she had left because of his abuse. The aunt and uncle lived in Mexico. Adriana went to live with them and was beaten and tortured on a daily basis until she died.
Adriana's story is just one of the thousands that Bill Bowen has investigated in the past three years. The film tells only a few of these stories. The film reveals that the torture and death of children in the custody of Child Protective Services is too widespread to be ignored.
Bowen also investigates the secrecy of Child Protective Services, the supposed "best interest of the child" standard of CPS and family court, the nepotism in many Child Protective Services agencies, child abuse by CPS investigators, children who have disappeared or who have run away from CPS care, bias in family court and court transcripts that don't accurately reflect audio recordings
Bowen interviews not only parents who have had their children murdered while in the custody of CPS, he interviews forensic pathologists, former CPS workers, court reporters and more.
Bowen's short film, Innocence Destroyed, filmed by Chris Walters and Dan Jagels, is a powerful indictment of Child Protective Services. It is powerful not only because of Bowen's exhaustive search for the truth, but also because of his skill as a writer and filmmaker. Bowen's skill as a filmmaker is seen throughout the movie, but it is particularly shown at the beginning and near the end. The opening interview with Tausha Cram draws you into the film. The closing scene (see the photo above) of Tausha lying on Adriana's grave in Mexico, asking for her daughter's forgiveness, is one of the most unforgettable images I have ever seen in any movie.
If this film doesn't move you, then you might question whether or not you really are a member of the human race.
Check out the videos with this article at:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-14537-Albany-CPS-and-Family-Court-Examiner~y2009m9d28-Bill-Bowens-documentary-Innocence-Destroyed-about-kids-murdered-while-in-custody-of-CPS-is-powerful
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Thursday, February 11, 2010
FAR-LEFT LAWMAKERS IN CONCORD ARE ABUSING POWER AS A MATTER OF COURSE
CSLNH - FAR-LEFT LAWMAKERS IN CONCORD ARE ABUSING POWER AS A MATTER OF COURSE
Wednesday, February 10, 2010 at 08:41AM
Reps. Rous, Day and others on House Education Committee routinely evade process to force their will on parents
CONCORD, N.H.― Citizens for Sensible Legislation strongly condemns the actions of House Education Committee Chairman Emma Rous and her band of scofflaw progressives, who are trying to evade the state’s constitutional processes and force their unpopular, authoritarian agenda on families with children.
Last year, radical-leftist Democrat Rep. Judith Day of 141 Mill Road in North Hampton introduced a bill (H.B. 367) that would have forced parents to get permission from a local government employee to keep educating their children as they see fit. This year, the same progressive lawmaker tried to resurrect the bill (H.B. 368) that would have, among other things, forced home-schooling parents to certify with a government-run school system that they are teaching a state-sanctioned curriculum. The New Hampshire Legislature recognized the extreme, authoritarian nature of these bills, and defeated both handedly—the second with a 324-34 roll call vote.
Then on January 25 of this year, Rous, a Democratic state representative who lives at 64 Adams Point Road in Durham, tried to circumvent the legislative process by sending a letter on official House Education Committee letterhead without a vote from her committee to John E. Lyons Jr., chairman of the New Hampshire Department of Education. In that letter, supported only by a minority of committee members, including Judith Day, Rous recommended that the Education Department adopt regulations that would have effectively forced the same rules defeated twice by the state Legislature.
“One of the reasons parents choose to educate their children at home is to have ultimate authority over the educational process and teaching material,” said Andrew J. Manuse, spokesman for Citizens for Sensible Legislation. “It is unconscionable that this small group of progressive lawmakers think they know better than a child’s mother and father. Perhaps even more disturbing is that these liberal Democrats felt so drunk with power that they thought they could force their will on New Hampshire families, circumventing the legislative process and even their own committee.”
Unfortunately, Rous’s rogue action late last month was not unique. This out-of-touch lawmaker so mistrusts the people of New Hampshire that she stacked the deck against a bill (H.B. 1580) that would affirm that parents have natural, fundamental rights to determine and direct the education of their children. She brought in Rep. Kimberley Casey of 109 Giles Road in East Kingston and made her chairman of the subcommittee hearing the bill, even though Casey had no prior involvement with the effort. Casey had not even been a member of the House Education Committee. At the same time, she left out Rep. Paul Ingbretson of Haverhill, the Republican sponsor of the bill.
“Rous and her far-left colleagues seem to have an agenda against the natural rights of parents and the effort of liberty-minded folks to protect those rights from the overreaching arms of government,” Manuse said. “Clearly, this government has shown that a law protecting such rights is necessary, particularly when its members so freely abuse their power.”
Rous and her co-conspirators have tried to circumvent the legislative process on another front. Last year, the Legislature defeated the so-called “bathroom bill.” Now the far-left members of the Education Committee are ironically using an anti-bullying bill (H.B. 1523) to force the same agenda into government-run schools. Not only would the bill give one class of students more protection than others, violating the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the first two articles to the state constitution, it would also force schools to teach a radical sexual agenda to young children.
“The Democrats under the direction of Rous are trying to write discrimination into our laws by giving protections to one group of citizens that other groups don't have,” Manuse said. “Not only are these legislators hypocritically shunning their own stated opposition to discrimination, they are ironically bullying the majority of New Hampshire residents who don’t want their laws.”
About Citizens for Sensible Legislation
Citizens For Sensible Legislation is a volunteer coalition of residents committed to educating the people of New Hampshire about candidates, legislation and issues that affect individual and economic liberties.
http://www.nhinsider.com/press-releases/2010/2/10/cslnh-far-left-lawmakers-in-concord-are-abusing-power-as-a-m.html
Wednesday, February 10, 2010 at 08:41AM
Reps. Rous, Day and others on House Education Committee routinely evade process to force their will on parents
CONCORD, N.H.― Citizens for Sensible Legislation strongly condemns the actions of House Education Committee Chairman Emma Rous and her band of scofflaw progressives, who are trying to evade the state’s constitutional processes and force their unpopular, authoritarian agenda on families with children.
Last year, radical-leftist Democrat Rep. Judith Day of 141 Mill Road in North Hampton introduced a bill (H.B. 367) that would have forced parents to get permission from a local government employee to keep educating their children as they see fit. This year, the same progressive lawmaker tried to resurrect the bill (H.B. 368) that would have, among other things, forced home-schooling parents to certify with a government-run school system that they are teaching a state-sanctioned curriculum. The New Hampshire Legislature recognized the extreme, authoritarian nature of these bills, and defeated both handedly—the second with a 324-34 roll call vote.
Then on January 25 of this year, Rous, a Democratic state representative who lives at 64 Adams Point Road in Durham, tried to circumvent the legislative process by sending a letter on official House Education Committee letterhead without a vote from her committee to John E. Lyons Jr., chairman of the New Hampshire Department of Education. In that letter, supported only by a minority of committee members, including Judith Day, Rous recommended that the Education Department adopt regulations that would have effectively forced the same rules defeated twice by the state Legislature.
“One of the reasons parents choose to educate their children at home is to have ultimate authority over the educational process and teaching material,” said Andrew J. Manuse, spokesman for Citizens for Sensible Legislation. “It is unconscionable that this small group of progressive lawmakers think they know better than a child’s mother and father. Perhaps even more disturbing is that these liberal Democrats felt so drunk with power that they thought they could force their will on New Hampshire families, circumventing the legislative process and even their own committee.”
Unfortunately, Rous’s rogue action late last month was not unique. This out-of-touch lawmaker so mistrusts the people of New Hampshire that she stacked the deck against a bill (H.B. 1580) that would affirm that parents have natural, fundamental rights to determine and direct the education of their children. She brought in Rep. Kimberley Casey of 109 Giles Road in East Kingston and made her chairman of the subcommittee hearing the bill, even though Casey had no prior involvement with the effort. Casey had not even been a member of the House Education Committee. At the same time, she left out Rep. Paul Ingbretson of Haverhill, the Republican sponsor of the bill.
“Rous and her far-left colleagues seem to have an agenda against the natural rights of parents and the effort of liberty-minded folks to protect those rights from the overreaching arms of government,” Manuse said. “Clearly, this government has shown that a law protecting such rights is necessary, particularly when its members so freely abuse their power.”
Rous and her co-conspirators have tried to circumvent the legislative process on another front. Last year, the Legislature defeated the so-called “bathroom bill.” Now the far-left members of the Education Committee are ironically using an anti-bullying bill (H.B. 1523) to force the same agenda into government-run schools. Not only would the bill give one class of students more protection than others, violating the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the first two articles to the state constitution, it would also force schools to teach a radical sexual agenda to young children.
“The Democrats under the direction of Rous are trying to write discrimination into our laws by giving protections to one group of citizens that other groups don't have,” Manuse said. “Not only are these legislators hypocritically shunning their own stated opposition to discrimination, they are ironically bullying the majority of New Hampshire residents who don’t want their laws.”
About Citizens for Sensible Legislation
Citizens For Sensible Legislation is a volunteer coalition of residents committed to educating the people of New Hampshire about candidates, legislation and issues that affect individual and economic liberties.
http://www.nhinsider.com/press-releases/2010/2/10/cslnh-far-left-lawmakers-in-concord-are-abusing-power-as-a-m.html
Child Protective Services CaseLaw
Child Protective Services CaseLaw
In CPS, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, Family Rights, Obama, Parents rights, child trafficking, cps fraud, federal crimes, judicial corruption, mothers rights, state crimes on April 20, 2009 at 5:00 am
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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! 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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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 Courts Bulletin describing the case.
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.
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!
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.
http://mkg4583.wordpress.com/2009/04/20/child-protective-services-caselaw/
In CPS, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, Family Rights, Obama, Parents rights, child trafficking, cps fraud, federal crimes, judicial corruption, mothers rights, state crimes on April 20, 2009 at 5:00 am
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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! 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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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 Courts Bulletin describing the case.
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.
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!
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.
http://mkg4583.wordpress.com/2009/04/20/child-protective-services-caselaw/
Court may lose power over children's care
Court may lose power over children's care
CAROL NADER
February 12, 2010 .
THE Children's Court could lose its power to determine whether vulnerable children are taken into protection, and those cases could instead be decided by a new protective tribunal, under one option floated in a state government review.
The Victorian Law Reform Commission has also touted the idea of transferring the family division of the Children's Court - which currently hears child protection cases - to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, and including people other than judicial officers in making decisions about whether a child should be taken into care.
Or, the commission says, a panel with both judicial and non-judicial people could sit within the Children's Court. Currently, orders placing children in care are made by a Children's Court magistrate.
The ideas are among a range of options released yesterday by the commission, which is conducting a state government review on the court process within the child protection system.
Attorney-General Rob Hulls last November asked the commission to conduct the review, after the Ombudsman said the court was too adversarial and not always acting in the best interests of children. The criticism was part of a scathing report on how the Department of Human Services manages child protection.
There has also long been tension between the court and child protection workers in the department.
Other options floated by the commission include:
■ A new process that focuses on resolving matters by agreement.
■ New grounds for the state to decide it needs to intervene in the care of a child, whether it should intervene earlier, the possibility of court-approved parental responsibility contracts, and changes to how these interventions are authorised by the Children's Court.
■ Creating an independent statutory commissioner who would take over some of the functions currently performed by the secretary of the Department of Human Services, and make some decisions currently made by the court, such as regarding access.
The commission is now inviting submissions from the public, which are due by April 1.
Commission chairman Professor Neil Rees said in a statement that it had observed proceedings in the court as part of its research. It would consider arrangements in other countries, particularly England and Scotland.
Melbourne University professor in child and family welfare Cathy Humphreys did not single out any option as the best one but said having an independent body with new ideas conducting this review should be welcomed.
She said in Scotland, a panel with both judicial and non-judicial people had been operating successfully for many years.
''It's something we should consider.''
http://www.theage.com.au/national/court-may-lose-power-over-childrens-care-20100212-nvfg.html
CAROL NADER
February 12, 2010 .
THE Children's Court could lose its power to determine whether vulnerable children are taken into protection, and those cases could instead be decided by a new protective tribunal, under one option floated in a state government review.
The Victorian Law Reform Commission has also touted the idea of transferring the family division of the Children's Court - which currently hears child protection cases - to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, and including people other than judicial officers in making decisions about whether a child should be taken into care.
Or, the commission says, a panel with both judicial and non-judicial people could sit within the Children's Court. Currently, orders placing children in care are made by a Children's Court magistrate.
The ideas are among a range of options released yesterday by the commission, which is conducting a state government review on the court process within the child protection system.
Attorney-General Rob Hulls last November asked the commission to conduct the review, after the Ombudsman said the court was too adversarial and not always acting in the best interests of children. The criticism was part of a scathing report on how the Department of Human Services manages child protection.
There has also long been tension between the court and child protection workers in the department.
Other options floated by the commission include:
■ A new process that focuses on resolving matters by agreement.
■ New grounds for the state to decide it needs to intervene in the care of a child, whether it should intervene earlier, the possibility of court-approved parental responsibility contracts, and changes to how these interventions are authorised by the Children's Court.
■ Creating an independent statutory commissioner who would take over some of the functions currently performed by the secretary of the Department of Human Services, and make some decisions currently made by the court, such as regarding access.
The commission is now inviting submissions from the public, which are due by April 1.
Commission chairman Professor Neil Rees said in a statement that it had observed proceedings in the court as part of its research. It would consider arrangements in other countries, particularly England and Scotland.
Melbourne University professor in child and family welfare Cathy Humphreys did not single out any option as the best one but said having an independent body with new ideas conducting this review should be welcomed.
She said in Scotland, a panel with both judicial and non-judicial people had been operating successfully for many years.
''It's something we should consider.''
http://www.theage.com.au/national/court-may-lose-power-over-childrens-care-20100212-nvfg.html
'Fathers Should Be Involved in the Child Protection Process'
CA Judge: 'Fathers Should Be Involved in the Child Protection Process'
February 10th, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
It's too bad I don't have room to show you all of the article written by retired judge Leonard Edwards of California. He's writing in the Winter, 2009 edition of The Bench, which is the official publication of the California Judges Association. His article is entitled "Engaging Fathers in the Child Custody Process," but his topic is not divorce, he's writing about child protection hearings in juvenile court. That's where CPS presents cases of child neglect and maltreatment and judges decide whether to remove a child from its parent and place him/her in some form of protective custody like foster care. His remarks are telling.
For example, he says that "Non-custodial fathers infrequently appear in child-protection proceedings." Now why would that be? "Some fathers cannot be found; others do not want to participate; some mothers do not want the father to know of the proceedings, and social workers sometimes are ambivalent about engaging the father." So extreme is the antipathy of courts, laws and court personnel for fathers that Edwards says that juvenile courts are simply referred to as "Mothers' Courts."
Still, Edwards says that "from a judicial perspective and from a child's perspective, fathers should be involved in the child protection process." He points out that fathers are not alone in what they offer children; they offer their extended families as well. Paternal grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews all come as part of the paternal package. And that extended family can provide a child financial, social and emotional resources that a mother and her family may lack.
"If courts are truly going to serve the best interests of children, fathers and their families need to be identified and engaged early in the proceedings. Judges...can greatly influence whether a father will participate in child protection proceedings."
How judges can better involve fathers is the nut of what Edwards wants to say. He lists 16 things judges can do, including,
I. Identify all possible fathers;
II. Question the mother under oath about the father's identity; (Notice the "under oath" part. Edwards is telling judges not to accept easy answers or false ones.)
III. Locate the father.
V. Order the social worker to personally serve all potential fathers with notice of the proceedings.
VII. Insist that caseworkers use good faith efforts to identify, locate and support the father throughout the child protection process.
IX. When a potential father comes to court, let him know that the court is pleased that he has appeared because he is an important person in the child's life.
X. Order that paternity testing be completed as soon as possible at state expense.
XI. Appoint counsel for the father at state expense immediately.
XII. Order visitation between the father and the child. Make it clear to the father and all participants in the court process that the father will be considered for placement.
Edwards concludes by saying,
Children need to know who their fathers are. They need to know who all of their relatives are, not just those on the mother's side of the family. Children will fare better in life when they are connected with their entire family.
I've written before about the study by the Urban Institute that shows that child protective agencies prefer foster care to father care. When agencies are considering taking a child from its mother, very often they ignore the most obvious choice for placement - the father. That study found that in over half of the cases in which the father's identity was known, CPS workers made no effort to contact him.
Judge Edwards' entire article shows the truth of the Urban Institute study. He's clearly trying to inculcate some very basic concepts into his readership. And he's clearly aware that mothers, caseworkers, social workers, etc. prefer to bypass fathers altogether.
In addition to all of the positive aspects of placing children with their fathers that Edwards mentions, he neglects at least one. Placing children with their fathers is cheaper for the state than placing them in foster care or some other form of protective custody. At a time when states find their budgets squeezed more than usual, that's a consideration no one should overlook.
Judges everywhere, not just in California, should read Judge Edwards' article and take it to heart.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 10th, 2010 at 1:48 pm and is filed under Fathers' Rights/Noncustodial parents' rights, Child Protective Services/Child Welfare System
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4572
February 10th, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
It's too bad I don't have room to show you all of the article written by retired judge Leonard Edwards of California. He's writing in the Winter, 2009 edition of The Bench, which is the official publication of the California Judges Association. His article is entitled "Engaging Fathers in the Child Custody Process," but his topic is not divorce, he's writing about child protection hearings in juvenile court. That's where CPS presents cases of child neglect and maltreatment and judges decide whether to remove a child from its parent and place him/her in some form of protective custody like foster care. His remarks are telling.
For example, he says that "Non-custodial fathers infrequently appear in child-protection proceedings." Now why would that be? "Some fathers cannot be found; others do not want to participate; some mothers do not want the father to know of the proceedings, and social workers sometimes are ambivalent about engaging the father." So extreme is the antipathy of courts, laws and court personnel for fathers that Edwards says that juvenile courts are simply referred to as "Mothers' Courts."
Still, Edwards says that "from a judicial perspective and from a child's perspective, fathers should be involved in the child protection process." He points out that fathers are not alone in what they offer children; they offer their extended families as well. Paternal grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews all come as part of the paternal package. And that extended family can provide a child financial, social and emotional resources that a mother and her family may lack.
"If courts are truly going to serve the best interests of children, fathers and their families need to be identified and engaged early in the proceedings. Judges...can greatly influence whether a father will participate in child protection proceedings."
How judges can better involve fathers is the nut of what Edwards wants to say. He lists 16 things judges can do, including,
I. Identify all possible fathers;
II. Question the mother under oath about the father's identity; (Notice the "under oath" part. Edwards is telling judges not to accept easy answers or false ones.)
III. Locate the father.
V. Order the social worker to personally serve all potential fathers with notice of the proceedings.
VII. Insist that caseworkers use good faith efforts to identify, locate and support the father throughout the child protection process.
IX. When a potential father comes to court, let him know that the court is pleased that he has appeared because he is an important person in the child's life.
X. Order that paternity testing be completed as soon as possible at state expense.
XI. Appoint counsel for the father at state expense immediately.
XII. Order visitation between the father and the child. Make it clear to the father and all participants in the court process that the father will be considered for placement.
Edwards concludes by saying,
Children need to know who their fathers are. They need to know who all of their relatives are, not just those on the mother's side of the family. Children will fare better in life when they are connected with their entire family.
I've written before about the study by the Urban Institute that shows that child protective agencies prefer foster care to father care. When agencies are considering taking a child from its mother, very often they ignore the most obvious choice for placement - the father. That study found that in over half of the cases in which the father's identity was known, CPS workers made no effort to contact him.
Judge Edwards' entire article shows the truth of the Urban Institute study. He's clearly trying to inculcate some very basic concepts into his readership. And he's clearly aware that mothers, caseworkers, social workers, etc. prefer to bypass fathers altogether.
In addition to all of the positive aspects of placing children with their fathers that Edwards mentions, he neglects at least one. Placing children with their fathers is cheaper for the state than placing them in foster care or some other form of protective custody. At a time when states find their budgets squeezed more than usual, that's a consideration no one should overlook.
Judges everywhere, not just in California, should read Judge Edwards' article and take it to heart.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 10th, 2010 at 1:48 pm and is filed under Fathers' Rights/Noncustodial parents' rights, Child Protective Services/Child Welfare System
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4572
Ore. studies role age plays in child-abuse checks
Ore. studies role age plays in child-abuse checks
Prompted by the death of a 15-year-old girl, Oregon's Department of Human Services is studying whether age plays a factor when welfare workers choose which cases to investigate.
Jeannette Maples died in her Eugene home Dec. 9, and her mother and stepfather have been charged with murder. Human Services officials wonder whether welfare workers failed to act on calls reporting her abuse because she was older than many other child abuse victims.
State investigators are looking at whether the flawed screenings in her case were due to individual misjudgments or to a systemic problem of abuse screeners "over-relying upon a child's age as part of their evaluation of child vulnerability." Their audit of a sample of closed cases is expected to be completed by March 1.
State and private social service leaders insist they see no evidence in the Portland area that child welfare workers are reluctant to act on abuse reports about older children.
"If the caller says a 16-year-old got punched in the face by his dad or a 4-year-old got punched in the face by dad, we're assigning both of those," said Stacey Ayers, program manager for child protective services. "The responses will be immediate."
But there is a history of placing less emphasis on cases involving older children. In the 1990s, Oregon deliberately categorized older children as less vulnerable, under the theory that they could flee abusive homes if necessary. Officials say they abandoned that practice after youth advocates challenged it.
"They have tried to get over that mentality," said Kevin Donegan, director of homeless youth services for Janus Youth Programs Inc. in Portland. "Unfortunately, there is still some of that mindset in the state."
Mark McKechnie, executive director of the Juvenile Rights Project Inc., agrees that Portland-area social workers have responded better to abuse reports on older youth in recent years. But he said he still worries that state guidelines for screening abuse reports could lead some workers to conclude that older children are not vulnerable.
Guidelines say a child's vulnerability should be judged "according to the child's physical and emotional development, ability to communicate needs, mobility, size and dependence."
In a report released last week, state investigators said Maples' age appears to have been "considered as a major factor in the conclusion that she was not vulnerable."
At least three reports in 2007 and 2009, when Maples had become isolated in home school, should have triggered visits to her home by state child protection workers, the investigation concluded.
Instead, screeners chose against intervention after each call.
In the state's Multnomah County Child Welfare Hotline office in Portland, social workers do not assume older children are less vulnerable because they could have cognitive or developmental deficits, might not be able to defend themselves, or might have nowhere to go, said Miriam Green, program manager.
As a safeguard, she said, every report is shown to at least one supervisor and sometimes to police.
"We have to get it right 100 percent of the time," Green said, "and we're human beings."
Posted in State-and-regional on Saturday, February 6, 2010 2:15 pm Updated: 2:03 pm.
http://democratherald.com/news/state-and-regional/article_c3b5671f-88cd-5421-b595-b85f0871da41.html
Prompted by the death of a 15-year-old girl, Oregon's Department of Human Services is studying whether age plays a factor when welfare workers choose which cases to investigate.
Jeannette Maples died in her Eugene home Dec. 9, and her mother and stepfather have been charged with murder. Human Services officials wonder whether welfare workers failed to act on calls reporting her abuse because she was older than many other child abuse victims.
State investigators are looking at whether the flawed screenings in her case were due to individual misjudgments or to a systemic problem of abuse screeners "over-relying upon a child's age as part of their evaluation of child vulnerability." Their audit of a sample of closed cases is expected to be completed by March 1.
State and private social service leaders insist they see no evidence in the Portland area that child welfare workers are reluctant to act on abuse reports about older children.
"If the caller says a 16-year-old got punched in the face by his dad or a 4-year-old got punched in the face by dad, we're assigning both of those," said Stacey Ayers, program manager for child protective services. "The responses will be immediate."
But there is a history of placing less emphasis on cases involving older children. In the 1990s, Oregon deliberately categorized older children as less vulnerable, under the theory that they could flee abusive homes if necessary. Officials say they abandoned that practice after youth advocates challenged it.
"They have tried to get over that mentality," said Kevin Donegan, director of homeless youth services for Janus Youth Programs Inc. in Portland. "Unfortunately, there is still some of that mindset in the state."
Mark McKechnie, executive director of the Juvenile Rights Project Inc., agrees that Portland-area social workers have responded better to abuse reports on older youth in recent years. But he said he still worries that state guidelines for screening abuse reports could lead some workers to conclude that older children are not vulnerable.
Guidelines say a child's vulnerability should be judged "according to the child's physical and emotional development, ability to communicate needs, mobility, size and dependence."
In a report released last week, state investigators said Maples' age appears to have been "considered as a major factor in the conclusion that she was not vulnerable."
At least three reports in 2007 and 2009, when Maples had become isolated in home school, should have triggered visits to her home by state child protection workers, the investigation concluded.
Instead, screeners chose against intervention after each call.
In the state's Multnomah County Child Welfare Hotline office in Portland, social workers do not assume older children are less vulnerable because they could have cognitive or developmental deficits, might not be able to defend themselves, or might have nowhere to go, said Miriam Green, program manager.
As a safeguard, she said, every report is shown to at least one supervisor and sometimes to police.
"We have to get it right 100 percent of the time," Green said, "and we're human beings."
Posted in State-and-regional on Saturday, February 6, 2010 2:15 pm Updated: 2:03 pm.
http://democratherald.com/news/state-and-regional/article_c3b5671f-88cd-5421-b595-b85f0871da41.html
State's child-protection laws must be changed
State's child-protection laws must be changed
February 9, 2010
I am sickened and outraged of the death of a 3-year-old allegedly killed by the people meant to protect her. My God, why was she returned?
How high does the toll have to be before this madness stops? Laws need to change.
How many cases go unreported? How many children are waiting to be returned to be killed?
I feel all cases need to be reopened and Child Protective Services and the family courts investigated in every case.
Rest in peace, Prhaze Rosemary. May your death not be in vain. You speak for all the children.
I'm sorry they failed you.
CATHY RUMBLE
Jan. 26
http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20100209/OPINION03/2090317/1014/OPINION/State+s+child-protection+laws+must+be+changed
February 9, 2010
I am sickened and outraged of the death of a 3-year-old allegedly killed by the people meant to protect her. My God, why was she returned?
How high does the toll have to be before this madness stops? Laws need to change.
How many cases go unreported? How many children are waiting to be returned to be killed?
I feel all cases need to be reopened and Child Protective Services and the family courts investigated in every case.
Rest in peace, Prhaze Rosemary. May your death not be in vain. You speak for all the children.
I'm sorry they failed you.
CATHY RUMBLE
Jan. 26
http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20100209/OPINION03/2090317/1014/OPINION/State+s+child-protection+laws+must+be+changed
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)