Requirements of the Fourth Amendment
Posted: 04 Mar 2010 11:37 PM PST
What are the requirements of the Fourth Amendment?
Yvonne Mason
March 4, 2010
protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/requirements-of-the-fourth-amendment/
The general rule is that unreasonable searches and seizures are banned. But the second part of the rule is the most important in this context. All warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable.
There are two and only two recognized exceptions to the requirement of having a warrant for the conduct of a child abuse investigation:
1. The adult in charge of the premises gives the social worker his/her free and voluntary consent to enter the home.
2. The social worker possesses evidence that meets two standards:
(a) it satisfies the legal standard of establishing probable cause; and
(b) the evidence demonstrates that there are exigent circumstances relative to the health of the children.
Consent.
If a police officer says, “If you don’t let us in your home we will break down your door”—a parent who then opens the door has not given free and voluntary consent. If a social worker says, “If you don’t let me in the home I will take your children away”—a parent who then opens the door has not given free and voluntary consent. Threats to go get a “pick up order” negate consent. Any type of communication which conveys the idea to the parent that they have no realistic alternative but to allow entry negates any claim that the entry was lawfully gained through the channel of consent.
It should be remembered that consent is only one of the three valid ways to gain entry: (warrant, consent, or probable cause and exigent circumstances.) There is nothing improper about saying, “We have a warrant you must let us in” or “We have solid evidence that your child is in extreme danger, you must let us in.” Such statements indicate that the social worker is relying on some theory other than consent to gain lawful entry. Of course, the social worker must indeed have a warrant if such a claim is made. And, in similar fashion, if a claim is made that the entry is being made upon probable cause of exigent circumstances, then that must also be independently true.
Probable Cause & Exigent Circumstances
The Fourth Amendment does not put a barrier in the way of a social worker who has reliable evidence that a child is in imminent danger. For example, if a hotline call comes in and says, “My name is Mildred Smith, here is my address and phone number. I was visiting my grandchildren this morning and I discovered that one of my grandchildren, Johnny, age 5, is being locked in his bedroom without food for days at a time, and he looked pale and weak to me”—the social worker certainly has evidence of exigent circumstances and is only one step away from having probable cause.
Since the report has been received over the telephone, it is possible that the tipster is an imposter and not the child’s grandmother. A quick verification of the relationship can be made in a variety of ways and once verified, the informant, would satisfy the legal test of reliability which is necessary to establish probable cause.
However, a case handled by HSLDA in San Bernadino County, California, illustrates that even a grandparent cannot be considered a per se reliable informant.
A grandfather called in a hotline complaint with two totally separate allegations of sexual abuse. The first claim was that his son, who was a boarder in an unrelated family’s home, was sexually abusing the children in that home. The second claim concerned his daughter and her husband. The claim here was that the husband was sexually abusing their children. These were two separate allegations in two separate homes.
The social workers went to the home of the unrelated family first to investigate the claims about the tipster’s son. They found the claims to be utterly spurious. They had gained entry into the home based on the consent of the children’s parents.
The following day they went to the home of the tipster’s daughter. The daughter had talked to her brother in the meantime and knew that her father had made a false report about him. When the social workers arrived at her home, she informed them that they were in pursuit of a report made by a known false reporter—her father. Moreover, she informed the social workers that she had previously obtained a court order requiring her father to stay away from her family and children based on his prior acts of harassment.
Despite the fact that the social workers knew that their reporter had been previously found to be unreliable—they insisted that they would enter the family home without consent.
In a civil rights suit we brought against the social workers and police officers, they settled the matter with a substantial payment to the family in satisfaction of their claims that the entry was in violation of their civil rights because the evidence in their possession did not satisfy the standard of probable cause.
It is not enough to have information that the children are in some form of serious danger. The evidence must also pass a test of reliability that our justice system calls probable cause.
In the first appellate case I ever handled in this area, H.R. v. State Department of Human Resources, 612 So. 2d 477 (Ala. Ct. App. 1992); the court held that an anonymous tip standing alone never amounts to probable cause. The Calabretta court held the same thing, as have numerous other decisions which have faced the issue directly.
On the surface, this places the social worker in a dilemma. On the one hand, state statutes, local regulations, and the perception of federal mandates seem to require a social worker to conduct an investigation on the basis of an anonymous tip. But, on the other hand, the courts are holding in case after case that if you do enter a home based on nothing more than an anonymous tip you are violating the Fourth Amendment rights of those being investigated. What do you do?
The answer is: Pay attention to the details of each set of the rules.
First and foremost, keep in mind that the ultimate federal mandate is the Constitution of the United States. No federal law can condition your receipt of federal funds on the basis that you violate some other provision of the Constitution. South Dakota v. Dole, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
Second, realize that the mandate to conduct an investigation does not require you to enter every home. Even if your rules or statutes seem to expressly require entry into every home, such rules and statutes must be construed in a manner consistent with the Constitution. The net requirement is this: if your laws and regulations seem to require entry into every home, then social workers should be instructed to add this caveat: “when it is constitutional for me to do so.”
Obviously, nothing in the Constitution prevents a social worker from going to a home and simply asking to come in. If the parent or guardian says “yes”, there is no constitutional violation whatsoever—provided that there was no coercion.
This covers the vast majority of investigations. The overwhelming response of people being investigated is to allow the social worker to enter the home and conduct whatever investigation is reasonably necessary.
The second alternative is to seek a warrant or entry order. The Fourth Amendment itself spells out the evidence required for a warrant or entry order. No warrant shall issue but on probable cause. The United States Supreme Court has held that courts may not use a different standard other than probable cause for the issuance of such orders. Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987).
If a court issues a warrant based on an uncorroborated anonymous tip, the warrant will not survive a judicial challenge in the higher courts. Anonymous tips are never probable cause.
This was the essence of the decision in the case of H.R. v. Alabama. In that case, the social worker took the position that she had to enter every home no matter what the allegation.
In court, I gave her some improbable allegations involving anonymous tipsters angry at government officials demanding that social workers investigate these officials for abusing their own children. Her position was that she had to enter the home of all those who were reported. The trial judge sustained her position and held that the mere receipt of a report of child abuse or neglect was sufficient for the issuance of an entry order. However, the trial judge’s decision was reversed by the Alabama Court of Appeals. That court held that the Alabama statute’s requirement of “cause shown” had to be read in the light of the Fourth Amendment. An anonymous tip standing alone did not meet the standard of cause shown.
If a social worker receives an anonymous tip, he/she can always go to the home and ask permission for entry. If permission is denied, then the social worker—if he/she believes it is justified—can seek independent sources to attempt to verify the tipster’s information. For example, if a tipster says, that the child is covered with bruises from head to toe, contact could be made with the child’s teacher to see if he/she has ever seen such bruises. If the teacher says “Yes, I see them all the time,” then the report has been corroborated and upon that kind of evidence the social worker probably has the basis for either the issuance of a warrant or an entry on the basis of exigent circumstances if it is not possible to get a warrant in a reasonable time.
Policy Implications It is my opinion that the welfare of children is absolutely consistent with our constitutional requirements. Children are not well-served if they are subjected to investigations based on false allegations. Little children can be traumatized by investigations in ways that are unintended by the social worker. However, to a small child all they know is that a strange adult is taking off their clothing while their mother is sobbing in the next room in the presence of an armed police officer. This does not seem to a child to be a proper invasion of their person—quite different, for example, from an examination by a doctor when their mother is present and cooperating.
The misuse of anonymous tips are well-known. Personal vendettas, neighborhood squabbles, disputes on the Little League field, are turned into maliciously false allegations breathed into a hotline. From my perspective, there is no reason whatsoever in any case, for a report to be anonymous. There is every reason to keep the reports confidential. The difference between an anonymous report and a confidential report is obvious. In an anonymous report the social worker or police officer does not know who the reporter is and has no evidence of the reliability of their report. There is no policy reason for keeping social workers or police officers in the dark.
On the other hand, there is every reason to keep the name of the reporter confidential. There are a great number of reasons that the person being investigated shouldn’t know who made the call.
Moreover, precious resources are diverted from children who are truly in need of protection when social workers are chasing false allegations breathed into a telephone by a malicious anonymous tipster. If such a tipster is told: “May we please have your name, address, and phone number? We will keep this totally confidential,” it is highly probable that the vast majority of reports made in good faith will give such information. It is also probable that those making maliciously false allegations will simply hang up.
Children are well-served when good faith allegations are investigated. They are equally well-served if malicious allegations can be screened out without the need for invasion.
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
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Parents’ Rights Amendment Reaches another Milestone
Parents’ Rights Amendment Reaches another Milestone
Press Contact: Rebekah Pizana National Coalition Director 540.645.9475 Rebekah@parentalrights.org
by Jim Bentley Monday, March 15, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE // March 11, 2010 // Washington, DC –
A Constitutional Amendment introduced by U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Michigan, to protect the parent-child relationship has reached 130 co-sponsors in the House.
“Members of Congress and their constituents are increasingly seeing the potential for interference into the parent-child relationship from judges, government and international organizations,” Hoekstra said. “Nothing – aside from cases of abuse and neglect – should insert itself between parents and their children.”
The Parents’ Rights Amendment (H.J.Res.42) would state explicitly in the U.S.
Constitution that parents have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit while protecting against abuse and neglect. Threats to the parent-child relationship include potential Senate ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.
“At a time when many are wondering if Congress is even listening, it is encouraging to see 130 congressional representatives standing up for a principle that limits government intrusion into our lives," says constitutional lawyer Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org. "Like the vast majority of Americans, these 130 representatives recognize the vital role parents play in protecting and providing for children. Parental rights must be preserved against encroachments of international law and changes in Supreme Court ideology, both of which are very real concerns today.”
More information on the Parents’ Rights Amendment and the list of co-sponsors can be viewed at www.parentalrights.org.
Parentalrights.org is a 501c4 non-profit organization existing solely for the purpose of passing a parental rights amendment to the US Constitution.
General | Categories: financial, entertainment, media, television, government, health, investments, culture, religion, catholic, protestant, christian, defense, family, parents, parenting, parental rights, consitution, amendment, congress
0 submitted by Jim Bentley
Parentalrights.org is a 501c4 non-profit organization existing solely for the purpose of passing a parental rights amendment to the US Constitution.
http://impactwire.com/a/673/Parents-Rights-Amendment-Reaches-another-Milestone
Press Contact: Rebekah Pizana National Coalition Director 540.645.9475 Rebekah@parentalrights.org
by Jim Bentley Monday, March 15, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE // March 11, 2010 // Washington, DC –
A Constitutional Amendment introduced by U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Michigan, to protect the parent-child relationship has reached 130 co-sponsors in the House.
“Members of Congress and their constituents are increasingly seeing the potential for interference into the parent-child relationship from judges, government and international organizations,” Hoekstra said. “Nothing – aside from cases of abuse and neglect – should insert itself between parents and their children.”
The Parents’ Rights Amendment (H.J.Res.42) would state explicitly in the U.S.
Constitution that parents have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit while protecting against abuse and neglect. Threats to the parent-child relationship include potential Senate ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.
“At a time when many are wondering if Congress is even listening, it is encouraging to see 130 congressional representatives standing up for a principle that limits government intrusion into our lives," says constitutional lawyer Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org. "Like the vast majority of Americans, these 130 representatives recognize the vital role parents play in protecting and providing for children. Parental rights must be preserved against encroachments of international law and changes in Supreme Court ideology, both of which are very real concerns today.”
More information on the Parents’ Rights Amendment and the list of co-sponsors can be viewed at www.parentalrights.org.
Parentalrights.org is a 501c4 non-profit organization existing solely for the purpose of passing a parental rights amendment to the US Constitution.
General | Categories: financial, entertainment, media, television, government, health, investments, culture, religion, catholic, protestant, christian, defense, family, parents, parenting, parental rights, consitution, amendment, congress
0 submitted by Jim Bentley
Parentalrights.org is a 501c4 non-profit organization existing solely for the purpose of passing a parental rights amendment to the US Constitution.
http://impactwire.com/a/673/Parents-Rights-Amendment-Reaches-another-Milestone
Monday, March 15, 2010
Expedited child placement system faces Senate vote
Expedited child placement system faces Senate vote
By Brad Iverson-Long
March 15th, 2010
Legislation would change health and welfare policy
A change in state policy to expedite placing children eligible for foster care with families or loved ones was approved by the Senate Health and Welfare Committee Monday.
“This legislation will help keep Idaho family together even though times have become very difficult,” said Rep. Sharon Block, R-Twin Falls, who worked on the legislation that received a 68-0 vote in the House March 5. The changes could help the Department of Health and Welfare place children in new homes within 48 hours, and would put family members at the top of the list for placement, followed by non-relatives with a significant relationship with the child. Foster care would be the third option.
“I think this is an answer to their prayers,” said Georgia Mackey with the Idaho Kincare Coalition, which advocates for relatives that are raising children.
Senators on the committee supported the effort unanimously. “God bless you to all those grandparents willing to take on care of your grandchildren,” said Sen. Jim Hammond, R-Coeur d’Alene. “It is a very difficult task.”
The measure now faces a full Senate vote. Read IdahoReporter.com’s story on the House vote here. The text of the legislation is available here.
http://www.idahoreporter.com/2010/expedited-child-placement-system-faces-senate-vote/
By Brad Iverson-Long
March 15th, 2010
Legislation would change health and welfare policy
A change in state policy to expedite placing children eligible for foster care with families or loved ones was approved by the Senate Health and Welfare Committee Monday.
“This legislation will help keep Idaho family together even though times have become very difficult,” said Rep. Sharon Block, R-Twin Falls, who worked on the legislation that received a 68-0 vote in the House March 5. The changes could help the Department of Health and Welfare place children in new homes within 48 hours, and would put family members at the top of the list for placement, followed by non-relatives with a significant relationship with the child. Foster care would be the third option.
“I think this is an answer to their prayers,” said Georgia Mackey with the Idaho Kincare Coalition, which advocates for relatives that are raising children.
Senators on the committee supported the effort unanimously. “God bless you to all those grandparents willing to take on care of your grandchildren,” said Sen. Jim Hammond, R-Coeur d’Alene. “It is a very difficult task.”
The measure now faces a full Senate vote. Read IdahoReporter.com’s story on the House vote here. The text of the legislation is available here.
http://www.idahoreporter.com/2010/expedited-child-placement-system-faces-senate-vote/
NH Updated Foster Care Rates-July 2009/Nationwide Rates
Nationwide Rates Also at:
http://dcfs.co.la.ca.us/policy/hndbook%20fce/E070/NationalRates.htm
NEW HAMPSHIRE
RATES UPDATED JULY 2009
ALL COUNTIES ARE PAYING SAME STATE RATE
NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
6 HAZEN DRIVE
CONCORD NEW HAMPSHIRE 03301
603-271-4708
FAX: 603-271-4729
ICPC CONTACT: LINDA BOMBACI
REGULAR DAILY RATES
AGE DAILY RATE
0-5YRS $16.12
6-11 $17.49
12-17 $20.81
SPECIALIZED FOSTER CARE EMERGENCY FOSTER CARE
(Max of 10 days) CRISIS FOSTER CARE
(Max of 5 days)
AGE DAILY RATE DAILY RATE DAILY RATE
0-5YRS $21.49 $33.08 $33.08
6-11 $23.32 $33.08 $33.08
12-17 $27.75 $33.08 $33.08
SUPPLEMENTAL FOSTER CARE
LEVEL DAILY RATE
1 $7.01
2 $14.02
3 $21.03
4 $35.95
ANNUAL CLOTHING INITIAL CLOTHING
ALL AGES $1.13 daily rate ALL AGES $50. First time in placement
SPECIAL OCCASION ALLOWANCES
(1) In addition to the daily board and care rate, a child in foster care receives funds for his or her birthday, back to school in August, and holiday celebrations in December.
(2) The special occasion allowances are paid to the foster parents to purchase gifts, toys, or extra clothing for the child.
(3) The following table reflects the payment amounts:
Birth - 5 years 6 - 10 years 11 - 13 years 14 - 18 years
Birthday $50.00 $75.00 $75.00 $75.00
Back to School $50.00 $50.00 $75.00 $ 100.00
Holiday $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00
http://dcfs.co.la.ca.us/policy/hndbook%20fce/E070/NationalRates.htm
NEW HAMPSHIRE
RATES UPDATED JULY 2009
ALL COUNTIES ARE PAYING SAME STATE RATE
NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
6 HAZEN DRIVE
CONCORD NEW HAMPSHIRE 03301
603-271-4708
FAX: 603-271-4729
ICPC CONTACT: LINDA BOMBACI
REGULAR DAILY RATES
AGE DAILY RATE
0-5YRS $16.12
6-11 $17.49
12-17 $20.81
SPECIALIZED FOSTER CARE EMERGENCY FOSTER CARE
(Max of 10 days) CRISIS FOSTER CARE
(Max of 5 days)
AGE DAILY RATE DAILY RATE DAILY RATE
0-5YRS $21.49 $33.08 $33.08
6-11 $23.32 $33.08 $33.08
12-17 $27.75 $33.08 $33.08
SUPPLEMENTAL FOSTER CARE
LEVEL DAILY RATE
1 $7.01
2 $14.02
3 $21.03
4 $35.95
ANNUAL CLOTHING INITIAL CLOTHING
ALL AGES $1.13 daily rate ALL AGES $50. First time in placement
SPECIAL OCCASION ALLOWANCES
(1) In addition to the daily board and care rate, a child in foster care receives funds for his or her birthday, back to school in August, and holiday celebrations in December.
(2) The special occasion allowances are paid to the foster parents to purchase gifts, toys, or extra clothing for the child.
(3) The following table reflects the payment amounts:
Birth - 5 years 6 - 10 years 11 - 13 years 14 - 18 years
Birthday $50.00 $75.00 $75.00 $75.00
Back to School $50.00 $50.00 $75.00 $ 100.00
Holiday $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Watchdog urged to widen foster care abuse probe
Watchdog urged to widen foster care abuse probe
By Patricia McDonagh
Saturday March 13 2010
A health watchdog was last night urged to investigate all foster care services in the country.
The call came after the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) revealed that it was carrying out a probe into 19 allegations, some believed to be sexual, made against foster carers in Dublin.
Four of the allegations relate to carers in Dublin north-west, while 15 involve carers in Dublin north-central.
The claims were uncovered during a review of fostering services in seven local health areas -- three in Dublin and four in Cork.
A total of 15 investigations into the allegations have been completed, but the final report into the seven areas will be completed in two months' time.
However, Fine Gael TD Alan Shatter insisted the review should be extended to the rest of the country. He said he was "disturbed" to learn of the HIQA investigation.
Mr Shatter added that he was aware of cases where allegations had been referred to the DPP. However he refused to say when this happened, how many cases were involved or which region was involved.
"I understand the DPP office received papers on allegations of children having been abused in foster care. They did not result in a prosecution," he said.
"But any allegation relating to children in foster care must be taken extremely seriously. I believe HIQA should extend its review of foster care services across the country."
A spokesman for HIQA last night said no new investigation was on the cards. But, refusing to rule out something of that nature in the future, he said the body did not need to be informed of specific concerns to conduct a probe.
"We are working on this current report with a view to publishing it within the next two months," he said. "In this instance specific concerns were brought to our attention.
"We will be looking at other areas, but not immediately," he added, cautioning that many of the allegations had to be examined for accuracy.
Labour senator Alex White insisted the HIQA investigation was further proof that the system was fundamentally dysfunctional.
Indignation
"We are all rightly outraged by these dreadful developments, but if we are to genuinely address the fundamental deficiencies in the system, we need to do more than express righteous indignation," he said.
"The time for firefighting is over. What we now need is a root-and-branch evaluation of the care system."
Last night, childcare organisations expressed their concern at the investigation. Jillian van Turnhout, chief executive of the Children's Rights Alliance, said she was deeply disturbed by the reports.
She was joined by Deirdre McTeigue, director of the Irish Foster Care Association, who said she was "distressed" to hear of the alleged abuse in a foster family setting.
However, a spokesman for Children's Minister Barry Andrews last night said he had emphasised to the HSE the importance of ensuring that comprehensive plans were in place to address weaknesses identified by the HSE and HIQA in foster care.
Yesterday the office of the DPP and the HSE refused to comment on Mr Shatter's claims of files involving abuse being sent to the DPP.
- Patricia McDonagh
Irish Independent
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/watchdog-urged-to-widen-foster-care-abuse-probe-2098328.html
By Patricia McDonagh
Saturday March 13 2010
A health watchdog was last night urged to investigate all foster care services in the country.
The call came after the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) revealed that it was carrying out a probe into 19 allegations, some believed to be sexual, made against foster carers in Dublin.
Four of the allegations relate to carers in Dublin north-west, while 15 involve carers in Dublin north-central.
The claims were uncovered during a review of fostering services in seven local health areas -- three in Dublin and four in Cork.
A total of 15 investigations into the allegations have been completed, but the final report into the seven areas will be completed in two months' time.
However, Fine Gael TD Alan Shatter insisted the review should be extended to the rest of the country. He said he was "disturbed" to learn of the HIQA investigation.
Mr Shatter added that he was aware of cases where allegations had been referred to the DPP. However he refused to say when this happened, how many cases were involved or which region was involved.
"I understand the DPP office received papers on allegations of children having been abused in foster care. They did not result in a prosecution," he said.
"But any allegation relating to children in foster care must be taken extremely seriously. I believe HIQA should extend its review of foster care services across the country."
A spokesman for HIQA last night said no new investigation was on the cards. But, refusing to rule out something of that nature in the future, he said the body did not need to be informed of specific concerns to conduct a probe.
"We are working on this current report with a view to publishing it within the next two months," he said. "In this instance specific concerns were brought to our attention.
"We will be looking at other areas, but not immediately," he added, cautioning that many of the allegations had to be examined for accuracy.
Labour senator Alex White insisted the HIQA investigation was further proof that the system was fundamentally dysfunctional.
Indignation
"We are all rightly outraged by these dreadful developments, but if we are to genuinely address the fundamental deficiencies in the system, we need to do more than express righteous indignation," he said.
"The time for firefighting is over. What we now need is a root-and-branch evaluation of the care system."
Last night, childcare organisations expressed their concern at the investigation. Jillian van Turnhout, chief executive of the Children's Rights Alliance, said she was deeply disturbed by the reports.
She was joined by Deirdre McTeigue, director of the Irish Foster Care Association, who said she was "distressed" to hear of the alleged abuse in a foster family setting.
However, a spokesman for Children's Minister Barry Andrews last night said he had emphasised to the HSE the importance of ensuring that comprehensive plans were in place to address weaknesses identified by the HSE and HIQA in foster care.
Yesterday the office of the DPP and the HSE refused to comment on Mr Shatter's claims of files involving abuse being sent to the DPP.
- Patricia McDonagh
Irish Independent
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/watchdog-urged-to-widen-foster-care-abuse-probe-2098328.html
Clinton State Department Working With 'Advocacy Groups' to Prepare 'Human Rights' Report on U.S. to Give to U.N.
Clinton State Department Working With 'Advocacy Groups' to Prepare 'Human Rights' Report on U.S. to Give to U.N.
Friday, March 12, 2010
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer
CNS News
(CNSNews.com) – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Thursday that the State Department is soliciting comments from citizens, advocacy groups and other non-governmental organizations on the human rights record of the United States.
“Human rights are universal, but their experience is local. This is why we are committed to holding everyone to the same standard, including ourselves,” Clinton told a press briefing at the State Department, where she unveiled the “2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.”
Clinton said the U.S. is now gathering facts on its own record because – as a member of the U.N. Human Rights Council – it is participating in the UNHRC’s “universal periodic review” process.
The Obama administration’s decision to join the Human Rights Council was controversial. The Geneva-based, 47-member HRC faces numerous criticisms, chief among them the presence of countries with poor rights records. Iran is currently running for a seat on the council.
“In the fall, we will present a report (to the UNHRC) based on the input of citizens and NGOs, gathered online and in face-to-face meetings across the country attended by senior government officials,” Clinton said on Thursday.
“Assessing opportunities for progress and soliciting citizen engagement is one way that we demonstrate our commitment in word and deed to the basic principles that guide us toward a more perfect union and a more peaceful world,” she added.
Following Clinton’s remarks, Michael Posner, assistant secretary for democracy, human rights and labor, took questions from reporters. One asked how the U.S. would defend itself against critics who say the U.S. “does not have clean hands, particularly when it comes to the criminal justice system.”
“I doubt that other governments are going to say things that people in this society don’t say every day,” Posner said. He reiterated Clinton’s commitment to preparing the first-ever report on the U.S. human rights record for review by the HCR.
Posner said the State Department is holding a series of meetings around the country to gather information it will use for the 20-page report it plans to submit to the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council in November.
“We’re not doing it in a formulaic way,” Posner said. “We’re doing these sessions, these public sessions, we’re inviting in advocacy groups from around the country – we had one in New Orleans, we had one in New York, we had one here is Washington.
“We’re going to spread out to the border areas,” Posner said. “We’re going to go to Detroit. We’re going to talk to people in this society who are on the front line of criticizing, whether it’s the criminal justice system, immigration policies or national security policies -- no holds barred,” he said.
“We’re going to hear them,” Posner said. “We’re going to incorporate their thoughts and suggestions into a report to the U.N. And then we’re going to show up at the end of the year and present that report and get comments from other countries.”
....According to the United Nation’s Web site, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process was set up to review member nations every four years. It is a three step process – reviewing the human rights “situation” of member nations, asking for “voluntary pledges” to follow recommendations made by the Human Rights Council, and following up to see if those recommendations have been followed.
The U.S. State Department Web site says the collection of complaints about human rights abuses in the United States is part of its goal of “transparency” in the UPR process.
“In the pursuit of a transparent and effective UPR process, the Department of State is encouraging the American public, including non-governmental organizations and civil society more broadly to provide input regarding human rights in the United States directly to the Department of State,” the Web site says.
Comments will be accepted online through April 30. FULL STORY
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/62698
Anybody have a few succinct thoughts about the TYRANNY of the War on the Family?
From the State Dept Universal Periodic Review page-
In the pursuit of a transparent and effective UPR process, the Department of State is encouraging the American public, including non-governmental organizations and civil society more broadly to provide input regarding human rights in the United States directly to the Department of State. Those interested in providing their views, comments, proposals and recommendations to the Department of State can send an email to upr_info@state.gov
EVERYONE- START WRITING!!!!!!!!!!!
Friday, March 12, 2010
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer
CNS News
(CNSNews.com) – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Thursday that the State Department is soliciting comments from citizens, advocacy groups and other non-governmental organizations on the human rights record of the United States.
“Human rights are universal, but their experience is local. This is why we are committed to holding everyone to the same standard, including ourselves,” Clinton told a press briefing at the State Department, where she unveiled the “2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.”
Clinton said the U.S. is now gathering facts on its own record because – as a member of the U.N. Human Rights Council – it is participating in the UNHRC’s “universal periodic review” process.
The Obama administration’s decision to join the Human Rights Council was controversial. The Geneva-based, 47-member HRC faces numerous criticisms, chief among them the presence of countries with poor rights records. Iran is currently running for a seat on the council.
“In the fall, we will present a report (to the UNHRC) based on the input of citizens and NGOs, gathered online and in face-to-face meetings across the country attended by senior government officials,” Clinton said on Thursday.
“Assessing opportunities for progress and soliciting citizen engagement is one way that we demonstrate our commitment in word and deed to the basic principles that guide us toward a more perfect union and a more peaceful world,” she added.
Following Clinton’s remarks, Michael Posner, assistant secretary for democracy, human rights and labor, took questions from reporters. One asked how the U.S. would defend itself against critics who say the U.S. “does not have clean hands, particularly when it comes to the criminal justice system.”
“I doubt that other governments are going to say things that people in this society don’t say every day,” Posner said. He reiterated Clinton’s commitment to preparing the first-ever report on the U.S. human rights record for review by the HCR.
Posner said the State Department is holding a series of meetings around the country to gather information it will use for the 20-page report it plans to submit to the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council in November.
“We’re not doing it in a formulaic way,” Posner said. “We’re doing these sessions, these public sessions, we’re inviting in advocacy groups from around the country – we had one in New Orleans, we had one in New York, we had one here is Washington.
“We’re going to spread out to the border areas,” Posner said. “We’re going to go to Detroit. We’re going to talk to people in this society who are on the front line of criticizing, whether it’s the criminal justice system, immigration policies or national security policies -- no holds barred,” he said.
“We’re going to hear them,” Posner said. “We’re going to incorporate their thoughts and suggestions into a report to the U.N. And then we’re going to show up at the end of the year and present that report and get comments from other countries.”
....According to the United Nation’s Web site, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process was set up to review member nations every four years. It is a three step process – reviewing the human rights “situation” of member nations, asking for “voluntary pledges” to follow recommendations made by the Human Rights Council, and following up to see if those recommendations have been followed.
The U.S. State Department Web site says the collection of complaints about human rights abuses in the United States is part of its goal of “transparency” in the UPR process.
“In the pursuit of a transparent and effective UPR process, the Department of State is encouraging the American public, including non-governmental organizations and civil society more broadly to provide input regarding human rights in the United States directly to the Department of State,” the Web site says.
Comments will be accepted online through April 30. FULL STORY
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/62698
Anybody have a few succinct thoughts about the TYRANNY of the War on the Family?
From the State Dept Universal Periodic Review page-
In the pursuit of a transparent and effective UPR process, the Department of State is encouraging the American public, including non-governmental organizations and civil society more broadly to provide input regarding human rights in the United States directly to the Department of State. Those interested in providing their views, comments, proposals and recommendations to the Department of State can send an email to upr_info@state.gov
EVERYONE- START WRITING!!!!!!!!!!!
Friday, March 12, 2010
DCYF/CPS and Judicial Corruption in New Hampshire
From unhappygrammy
Everyone should know by now exactly what DCYF/CPS and our court's are capable of in the deceitful practices used against our children and families.
Since being thrown into this very corrupt arena in September of 2005, due to my ongoing fight for the return of my grandchildren, I have become very vocal challenging DCYF and our judicial system, due to the wrongful abduction of Austin and Isabella Knightly, my precious grandchildren and the court's going right along with the fraud and abuse of families by DCYF.
I have met many people since this fight began, due to my comment's and my Grandparents blog, which include parent's, grandparent's, foster's, and even former foster children, who I might say are totally messed up now due to their torn apart families, compliments of DCYF and our courts.
I've met some really nice foster's and ex-foster's. They aren't all in it for the money. Some of them have been totally screwed over, just like the rest of us. They've been lied about and lied to also. They've agreed to mediated adoption with the bio families, after becoming good friends and because of this new friendship they've formed, the children are ripped from their homes and placed with DCYF's new chosen few.
It has recently come to my attention that I am not the only grandparent who has been told that I chose my daughter over my grandson. My daughter was arrested for charges that occurred after her newborn daughter was illegally stolen by Nashua DCYF. Young mother's make mistakes after their child is stolen. They don't think about the consequences of their actions after their child is taken. The only thing on their mind is their stolen child. They don't think about anything else.
Five month's after the baby's birth, my daughter became sick and several test's were done. Before the result's came back, she was arrested. During this time my grandson and his sister had been placed in my home, court-ordered by a Nashua Judge, who said my daughter,(their Aunt) living with us was not a problem.
After she was arrested, we received a letter in the mail from her Doctor, which stated she needed medical attention immediately as her cortisol level was extremely low and she could go into a coma at any time and die. We immediately put up our home and bailed her out. Because we did not want our daughter to die and bailed her out, our two grandchildren were taken from our home, forcefully by DCYF and four police officer's. Because we saved her life, our lives have been torn apart by DCYF.
The Concord DCYF Administrator told me I chose my daughter over my grandson and that I should have left her in jail to die. She also told me if it were her child, that's exactly what she would have done. She then very boldly asked,"Why isn't she dead?" She then told me because I chose my daughter over Austin, I would never see my grandchildren again!
I have been in contact with other grandparent's who have been told the same thing by this wretched woman. That they chose their child over their grandchild.
Now I must ask, Who is the real protector's of children here? It certainly isn't this sorry excuse of a woman. How can she be in charge of protecting children when she cares nothing about them? My daughter is a child also. She's MY child! This wretch had no business saying anything so cruel to me or anyone else! Our children are worth more to us than her paycheck and all the federal incentive money in the world! I do believe she is in the wrong job. A job she clearly dose NOT know how to do, nor want to do! If we left our daughter to die, DCYF would have said we were horrible people. Too horrible to take care of our grandchildren. There is alway's a motive behind every deceitful practice they pull. It's MONEY!
Everyone should know by now exactly what DCYF/CPS and our court's are capable of in the deceitful practices used against our children and families.
Since being thrown into this very corrupt arena in September of 2005, due to my ongoing fight for the return of my grandchildren, I have become very vocal challenging DCYF and our judicial system, due to the wrongful abduction of Austin and Isabella Knightly, my precious grandchildren and the court's going right along with the fraud and abuse of families by DCYF.
I have met many people since this fight began, due to my comment's and my Grandparents blog, which include parent's, grandparent's, foster's, and even former foster children, who I might say are totally messed up now due to their torn apart families, compliments of DCYF and our courts.
I've met some really nice foster's and ex-foster's. They aren't all in it for the money. Some of them have been totally screwed over, just like the rest of us. They've been lied about and lied to also. They've agreed to mediated adoption with the bio families, after becoming good friends and because of this new friendship they've formed, the children are ripped from their homes and placed with DCYF's new chosen few.
It has recently come to my attention that I am not the only grandparent who has been told that I chose my daughter over my grandson. My daughter was arrested for charges that occurred after her newborn daughter was illegally stolen by Nashua DCYF. Young mother's make mistakes after their child is stolen. They don't think about the consequences of their actions after their child is taken. The only thing on their mind is their stolen child. They don't think about anything else.
Five month's after the baby's birth, my daughter became sick and several test's were done. Before the result's came back, she was arrested. During this time my grandson and his sister had been placed in my home, court-ordered by a Nashua Judge, who said my daughter,(their Aunt) living with us was not a problem.
After she was arrested, we received a letter in the mail from her Doctor, which stated she needed medical attention immediately as her cortisol level was extremely low and she could go into a coma at any time and die. We immediately put up our home and bailed her out. Because we did not want our daughter to die and bailed her out, our two grandchildren were taken from our home, forcefully by DCYF and four police officer's. Because we saved her life, our lives have been torn apart by DCYF.
The Concord DCYF Administrator told me I chose my daughter over my grandson and that I should have left her in jail to die. She also told me if it were her child, that's exactly what she would have done. She then very boldly asked,"Why isn't she dead?" She then told me because I chose my daughter over Austin, I would never see my grandchildren again!
I have been in contact with other grandparent's who have been told the same thing by this wretched woman. That they chose their child over their grandchild.
Now I must ask, Who is the real protector's of children here? It certainly isn't this sorry excuse of a woman. How can she be in charge of protecting children when she cares nothing about them? My daughter is a child also. She's MY child! This wretch had no business saying anything so cruel to me or anyone else! Our children are worth more to us than her paycheck and all the federal incentive money in the world! I do believe she is in the wrong job. A job she clearly dose NOT know how to do, nor want to do! If we left our daughter to die, DCYF would have said we were horrible people. Too horrible to take care of our grandchildren. There is alway's a motive behind every deceitful practice they pull. It's MONEY!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)