I need to present the argument that the state does not have a compelling interest in "protecting" children that do not need to be protected. The states interest should not supersede parents protected liberties until there is proof that the children need to be protected, correct? So, if the child is not removed from the home, and remains in the day to day care of the parent, does that mean the parent is still legally a "fit" parent, and still retains all protections of their rights?
The DHS catch phrase is "erring on the side of the child" which basically amounts to a conclusive presumption of guilt against any person accused of any form or maltreatment. Doesn't this violate due process?
In civil procedure, are accused persons not still entitled to the presumption that they are innocent until proven guilty?
Isn't there something about not treating a crime as a civil matter or vice versa? How can alleged child abuse be both a crime and a civil matter? Basically, CPS can extract their "pound of flesh" through civil procedure when they don't have evidence for criminal charges... isn't there something wrong with that? How would one argue such a thing?
If coerced consent is not consent at all, in regard to warrantless search/seizure, what constitutes coerced consent? If one gives in out of fear of having your children removed, even though there was not a direct, articulated threat of such, does that constitute coerced consent? If the social worker sent the message through the kids that the parent "has to" let them in and let them look at everything, and the parent caved into the pressure out of fear that the children would be taken otherwise, does that qualify?
I have so many more questions, but I guess I should start with these. I SO appreciate what you do here. I thank you in advance for any helpful insight you might offer.
The DHS catch phrase is "erring on the side of the child" which basically amounts to a conclusive presumption of guilt against any person accused of any form or maltreatment. Doesn't this violate due process?
In civil procedure, are accused persons not still entitled to the presumption that they are innocent until proven guilty?
Isn't there something about not treating a crime as a civil matter or vice versa? How can alleged child abuse be both a crime and a civil matter? Basically, CPS can extract their "pound of flesh" through civil procedure when they don't have evidence for criminal charges... isn't there something wrong with that? How would one argue such a thing?
If coerced consent is not consent at all, in regard to warrantless search/seizure, what constitutes coerced consent? If one gives in out of fear of having your children removed, even though there was not a direct, articulated threat of such, does that constitute coerced consent? If the social worker sent the message through the kids that the parent "has to" let them in and let them look at everything, and the parent caved into the pressure out of fear that the children would be taken otherwise, does that qualify?
I have so many more questions, but I guess I should start with these. I SO appreciate what you do here. I thank you in advance for any helpful insight you might offer.