child protective services overhaul....

Kane wrote
I suggest before anyone sign and send this they get into some serious
fact checking.
There are errors and outright lies in this letter. If it's taken
seriously enough they will be checked by the recipient's staff and
giving little credibility.
The claims, for the most part, are well known propaganda ploys and
most recipients will round file such letters.
Go to the trouble to find out the truth. Make your complaints to
reform CPS based on facts, not this trash.

Yes, take it from Kane, the former Oregon Caseworker and
lobbyist for the agencies to slowly, ever so slowly reform from
within.
Never mind that the agencies have had over 30 years to
clean up their act.

Please notice that Kane (Donald L. Fisher) says there are
factual errors but did not point out the exact errors.

It would be his wish to tie up any action in technical trivia
and complaints vague enough they cannot be resolved,
or generally intimidate Family Rights advocates in their
slow march across the land.

Kane and the hyena pack hoplessly pretend they
are Family Rights advocates in the hope they can
gently guide Family Rights AWAY from any
immediate and swiftly corrective action.

He thinks that the rights GUARANTEED in the
First portion of the US Constitution we know
as the Bill Of Rights are up for debate, discussion
and negotiation, rather than those rights being
sacred, protected and GUARANTEED, flat out.

Did you know that most states have legislated
the PREPONDERANCE (51%) standard of proof
for Juvenile Court cases?

Santosky v Kramer is controlling Federal law
that says that because of the Liberty Interest
involved in Juvenile Court cases, the legal
burden of proof is CLEAR AND CONVINCING.
(75%)

Do you wonder WHY states have actually
legislated a system which does NOT fulfill
such an important federal requirement
to safeguard civil rights? WHY didn't the states
THEMSELVES legislate up to the Federal
and controlling standard required?

WHY run ENTIRE state court systems that
do not fulfill this overriding standard?

Even MORE interesting is that one could sincerely
argue that the legal standard for Child Removal
as a huge LIBERTY INTEREST should be
BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT?

That is the burden of proof for cases involving
potential incarceration because it involves
a LIBERTY Interest.

In light of the BILL OF RIGHTS, and the meaning of a
LIBERTY INTEREST, Why should the burden of proof
regarding the removal of a child from their family be any less?

Santosky v Kramer didn't go far ENOUGH, and even
this moderate requirement has not been enforced
as the standard throughout the USA.

Bar Associations, attorneys en masse, legislatures
and peoples reliance on the "Brotherhood of the Bar"
have ALL failed to see this simple damning truth.

The use of PREPONDERANCE as the standard
burden of proof is wrong, and has been FOR YEARS.

Should we quibble about the technicalities of dotted i's
or crossed t's which slow down the required and
OVERDUE changes, or should we press our imperfect
complaints?

The rubber stamp crowd would infiltrate, misguide or
steer Family Rights advocates to WATER DOWN the
venom of Citizen Outrage that CPS agencies
and their Juvenile Courts DESERVE.

Greg Hanson, Cedar Rapids Iowa




TOP POST of this thread by fx Feb 7th 10:32 PM

http://cpsvictims.tripod.com/id4.html

Step One is to start a series of letters. Write your Congress Person,
your Governor, Your State Represenative, Write the President and the
Vice President, write the FIrst Lady, write the Media and tell them
all
that these violations of the US Constitution will not be tolerated!

SAMPLE LETTER - FEEL FREE TO COPY AND USE AS A FORM LETTER!

Dear President, (Governor, Represenative etc.)

Nationwide, there are State run agencies who are supposed to be
protecting abused children in dangerous situations. Each State has
many
different titles for them. All of them are main stapled as CPS (Child
Protective Services). For example, in one Sate they are known as DCF
(Department of Children and Families.)

While there is an important need to find abused children and to
protect
them, the current system is only finding a small percent of those
truly
abused children. The rest of their statistics that guarantee a high
departmental income are from families who never abused their
children.
Where they get this income and the sources of information will be
posted
after the next paragraph.

I am not calling for an abolishment of CPS. What I am petitioning for
is
an overhaul and restructure to bring them in line with lawful
investigation practices, to maintain Constitutional Rights and proper
training for Agents who never had children, and psychological
evaluations to find and replace the Agents who were themselves abused
as
Children and see abuse in every home regardless of the situation.
This
is not, I repeat, not a rare occurrence. I will supply statistics to
support this and how this has escalated. I will also supply the
sources.

Departmental income has become more important to CPS and their
offices
than actually finding abused children and protecting them. Each and
every time they remove a child from the home, they get paid from the
Federal Government. Here they are.

1. Public Law 93-247 known as the Mondale Act of 1974.

2. Public Law 96-272 known as the Adoption Assistance and Child
Welfare
Act of 1980

4. Social Security Title IV-E funds.

The ASFA- Public Law 105-89 known as American Safe Families Act of
1997
is one of the most horrific laws on the books today. While it sounds
nice in the title, when you get through the legal jargon, what this
means is so wrong. If you ever had a child removed from your house by
CPS, even UNFOUNDED and you are innocent, they will take that child
in
minutes after the child is born! Babies are highly adoptable and the
Federal Government pays out $6,000 to the CPS office who conducts the
legal kidnapping and gets them adopted quickly without regards to the
biological Mother and her family. Since she was investigated once,
they
do this in the "best interests of the child" as she is a "potential"
abuser.

The largest targeted type of families are folks with low incomes,
children on SSI and are minorities. If you even have one of those
three
issues, you are a target for CPS to illegally investigate you. While
these things are a surefire magnet, they have been known to do
illegal
investigations against families if they were reported falsely with
malicious intent. Example is an ex-wife wants to get even with her
ex-husband and his new family, she could report them and put them
through Hell.

Why are the reasons CPS Agents actually find so little true abuse?

1. Agents who never had children and don't understand that a few toys
in
the corner of the room is not a hazardous mess.

2. Agents are not trained in real evidence recognition. In fact, no
Agent in CPS has any training in evidence, the Constitution or
criminal
justice. They are given anywhere from 3 to 6 months of training,
being
taught that it is ok to break into a Home without probable cause or
exigent circumstances.

3. Agents are trained to use subjective speculation and not objective
factual reporting.

4. The Agents do not get psychological evaluations. A number of
Agents
who were abused as a child themselves see abuse in every home they go
into, even if it's not there.

5. Most States do not require Agents to have a degree in Social
Sciences. Any degree will do, doesn't even have to be related to the
field.

6. The Agency has no checks and balances. A field Agent can lie to a
judge or police officer with absolutely no proof and have it entered
as
factual evidence in a court of law!

7. Agents are trained to believe they are immune from the authority
of
the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth
Amendment
and Fourteenth Amendment. They violate this in every investigation
done
nationwide.

Here are the statistics and sources to support these facts.

Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the United States. These
numbers
come from The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) in
Washington.

CPS- Physical Abuse (160) Sexual Abuse (112) Neglect (410) Medical
Neglect (14) Fatalities (6.4)

Parents- Physical Abuse (59) Sexual Abuse (13) Neglect (241) Medical
Neglect (12) Fatalities (1.5)

As you can see, children are abused far more in care than at home.
The
calculated average is for every 1 abused child removed from an
abusive
home, there are 17 unabused children removed from loving non-
offending
homes nationwide.

Constitutional Violations and Court Rulings that CPS Ignores to this
very day!

1. It's unconstitutional for CPS to conduct an investigation and
interview a child on private property without exigent circumstances
or
probable cause. - Doe et al, v. Heck et al (No. 01-3648, 2003 US App.
Lexis 7144)

2. All CPS workers in the United States are subject to the 4th and
14th
Amendment - Walsh v. Erie County Dept. of Job and Family Services,
3:01-cv-7588

3. Police officers and social workers are not immune for coercing or
forcing entry into a person's home without a search warrant.
Calabretta
v. Floyd (9th Cir. 1999)

4. The mere possibility of danger does not constitute an emergency or
exigent circumstance that would justify a forced warrantless entry and
a
warrantless seizure of a child. Hurlman v. Rice (2nd Cir. 1991)

5. Police officer and social worker may not conduct a warrantless
search
or seizure in a suspected child abuse case absent exigent
circumstances.
Defendants must have reason to believe that life or limb is in
immediate
jeopardy and that the intrusion is reasonable necessary to alleviate
the
threat. Searches and seizures in investigation of a child neglect or
child abuse case at a home are governed by the same principles as
other
searches and seizures at a home. Goodv. Dauphin County Social
Services
(3rd Cir. 1989)

6. The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and
seizures extends beyond criminal investigations and includes conduct
by
social workers in the context of a child neglect/abuse investigation.
Lenz v. Winburn (11th Cir. 1995)

7. Making false statements made to obtain a warrant, when the false
statements were necessary to the finding of probable cause on which
the
warrant was based, violates the Fourth Amendment's warrant
requirement.
Aponte Matos v. Toledo Davilla (1st Cir. 1998)

What can be done to change this for a better, more healthy Child
Protection System?

I. Child Abuse is a Crime, not a touchy feely civil complaint and
should
be investigated as a crime.

II. Have the abuse allegations investigated by a Detective or Police
Officer, who are trained for this as a career, whereas CPS workers
are
not. All investigations are joint ones with said Officers of the Law
and
with warrants properly issues under probable cause.

III. Re-train Agents to respect and obey the laws of the Constitution
of
the United States. If a family is guilty of abuse, a legal
investigation
will find it.

IV. Repeal the Mondale Act, Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare
Act,
Title IV-E rewards to CPS from Social Security and the American Safe
Families Act. Remember, they are not what the title sounds like and
has
been the root core of many loving homes losing their children to a
system that will abuse them.

V. Make CPS legally investigate those who sign up to be foster
parents.
They do not do this today, and many foster parent who want the money
for
fostering them are actually child abusers who never get caught!

VI. All interviews to be audio and video recorded just like it
happens
with the police!

VII. Hold CPS Agents and foster parents and the records keeper
responsible for every child who vanishes or dies in their care for
their
location.

VIII. Also investigate the person or persons reporting the abuse, and
if
done maliciously with intent to disrupt a family, prosecute the
reporter
to the fullest extent of the Law regarding making false claims to
Government Agencies to affect an unnecessary and costly
investigation.

IX. Abuse is a Crime, guarantee the accused retain their right to
face
their accusers in a court of law. As the system currently is, this is
not done.

X. The Children are to be tracked on a weekly biases so no more
children
vanish in the system.

XI. If a disabled, mentally retarded or sick Child is put into Foster
Care, the Child's current Physician will need to provide a copy of
the
diagnosis and treatment, and medications, if any, will be provided as
prescribed by the Physician. All appointments must be kept while in
Foster Care. Any violations without a very good reason will result in
the Foster Parents losing their certification for Foster Care.

XII. If a Foster Child dies while in Foster Care, there will be an
Investigation by the FBI and all parties responsible for the Death of
a
Child will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

XIII. There will be a National Database where all known abusers are
recorded and can be accessed by Law Enforcement. Everyone who is
found
not guilty won't have their Convictions and Abuse Reports listed. It
will be illegal to keep records of any sort on innocent individuals
or
families. If they are convicted in a court of law by a jury of their
peers, then the report of abuse they are guilty of will be the only
report listed.

Currently, none of this is done, and innocent families who are not
guilty of anything are losing their Children based on the word of
others
where there is no burden of proof for Prosecution, for the sake of
getting Federal Funds for tens of thousands of dollars. The few truly
abused children are ending up in a system where they are worse off
than
where they came from, even to the extent of being killed. Also, the
innocent children who are never abused are also killed.

Injustice against one American is injustice against all Americans.
Help
us put the Justice back into Child Protective Services and get them
focused on finding and saving abused children. It's time we removed
them
from the profitable business of tearing loving non-offending families
apart.

Sincerely,

Your Name Here

Kane wrote
I suggest before anyone sign and send this they get into some serious
fact checking.
There are errors and outright lies in this letter. If it's taken
seriously enough they will be checked by the recipient's staff and
giving little credibility.
The claims, for the most part, are well known propaganda ploys and
most recipients will round file such letters.
Go to the trouble to find out the truth. Make your complaints to
reform CPS based on facts, not this trash.

Greg wrote
Yes, take it from Kane, the former Oregon Caseworker and
lobbyist for the agencies to slowly, ever so slowly reform from
within.

Dan Sullivan
Kane has never been a CPS CW or a professional lobbyist.

Liar.
"professional" wasn't my claim.
It was your way to try to dodge the truth.

Greg wrote
Never mind that the agencies have had over 30 years to
clean up their act.

Dan wrote
Are you placing the responsibility for that on Kane, too?

Ambivalent. He was a cog and wishes he was again.
Were the death camp guards guilty for perpetuating
the operation of the facilities?

Greg wrote
Please notice that Kane (Donald L. Fisher) says there are
factual errors but did not point out the exact errors.

Dan wrote Then you can point out the errors.

This is called a snipe hunt, a time waste.

Greg wrote
It would be his wish to tie up any action in technical trivia
and complaints vague enough they cannot be resolved,
or generally intimidate Family Rights advocates in their
slow march across the land.

Dan wrote Slow march?
Dan wrote As in your six year odyssey from your idiocy
Dan wrote in Iowa... to your current state of idiocy in Iowa??

You know nothing then.
Your ignorance is bliss.

Greg wrote
Kane and the hyena pack hoplessly pretend they
are Family Rights advocates in the hope they can
gently guide Family Rights AWAY from any
immediate and swiftly corrective action.

Dan wrote
You went from a slow march to immediate
and swiftly corrective action... which is it?

Both actually. There are fits and starts.
The conclusion is inevitable, but never fast enough.

Greg wrote
He thinks that the rights GUARANTEED in the
First portion of the US Constitution we know
as the Bill Of Rights are up for debate, discussion
and negotiation, rather than those rights being
sacred, protected and GUARANTEED, flat out.

Dan wrote Which would they be exactly?

Your ignorance is bliss.

Greg wrote
Did you know that most states have legislated
the PREPONDERANCE (51%) standard of proof
for Juvenile Court cases?

Dan wrote Which states would they be?

All but one.
One state now mandates CLEAR AND CONVINCING
as the burden of proof.

Greg wrote
Santosky v Kramer is controlling Federal law
that says that because of the Liberty Interest
involved in Juvenile Court cases, the legal
burden of proof is CLEAR AND CONVINCING.
(75%)

Dan wrote
I [doubt] that would make any difference.

Your ignorance is bliss.

Greg wrote
Do you wonder WHY states have actually
legislated a system which does NOT fulfill
such an important federal requirement
to safeguard civil rights?

Dan wrote Exactly why is that, Greg?

If you have an answer, please offer it.

I don't care if this problem was deliberate
or through sheer stupidity. The double standard must stop.

Greg wrote
WHY didn't the states
THEMSELVES legislate up to the Federal
and controlling standard required?

Dan wrote Exactly why is that, Greg?

Please offer your guesses.

Greg wrote
WHY run ENTIRE state court systems that
do not fulfill this overriding standard?

Dan wrote
But it isn't an "overriding" standard, is it, Greg?

Santosky v. Kramer is controlling FEDERAL caselaw.
It pertains DIRECTLY to the BILL OF RIGHTS.

Greg wrote
Even MORE interesting is that one could sincerely
argue that the legal standard for Child Removal
as a huge LIBERTY INTEREST should be
BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT?

Dan wrote State your case, Greg.

Do you intend to contribute anything Dan?

Greg wrote
That is the burden of proof for cases involving
potential incarceration because it involves
a LIBERTY Interest.

Dan wrote
OTOH it also could mean leaving a child or children in their own home
with a child abuser, such as yourself, Greg.

I am not a child abuser.
The caseworker LIED to make a case.
They trampled on the BILL OF RIGHTS.

Greg wrote
In light of the BILL OF RIGHTS, and the meaning of a
LIBERTY INTEREST, Why should the burden of proof
regarding the removal of a child from their family be any less?

Dan wrote Because the investigation has just begun.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Santosky v Kramer
Must be CLEAR AND CONVINCING FIRST!

The Nazilike needs of petty bureaucrats to
push their paperwork does NOT trump the
required CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS.

Greg wrote
Santosky v Kramer didn't go far ENOUGH, and even
this moderate requirement has not been enforced
as the standard throughout the USA.

Dan wrote
You said before this standard was "overriding."
Which is it, Greg?

Controlling caselaw and Bill Of Rights.
Most agencies and Juvenile Courts are
too busy rubber stamping to realize they
violate sacred Citizens Rights.

Greg wrote
Bar Associations, attorneys en masse, legislatures
and peoples reliance on the "Brotherhood of the Bar"
have ALL failed to see this simple damning truth.

Dan wrote Why is that, Greg?

Time for you to actually contribute Dan.

Greg wrote
The use of PREPONDERANCE as the standard
burden of proof is wrong, and has been FOR YEARS.

Dan wrote What have you done to fix it, Greg?

Your ignorance is bliss.

Dan wrote In your long six year odyssey...

Greg wrote
Should we quibble about the technicalities of dotted i's
or crossed t's which slow down the required and
OVERDUE changes, or should we press our imperfect
complaints?

Dan wrote What have you done to enact these changes, Greg?

Greg wrote
The rubber stamp crowd would infiltrate, misguide or
steer Family Rights advocates to WATER DOWN the
venom of Citizen Outrage that CPS agencies
and their Juvenile Courts DESERVE.

Dan wrote Please give three examples of your venom, Greg.

Are you going to contribute anything Dan?

Greg Hanson, Cedar Rapids Iowa
Greegot AT hotmail.com



TOP POST of this thread by fx Feb 7th 10:32 PM

http://cpsvictims.tripod.com/id4.html

Step One is to start a series of letters. Write your Congress Person,
your Governor, Your State Represenative, Write the President and the
Vice President, write the FIrst Lady, write the Media and tell them
all
that these violations of the US Constitution will not be tolerated!

SAMPLE LETTER - FEEL FREE TO COPY AND USE AS A FORM LETTER!

Dear President, (Governor, Represenative etc.)

Nationwide, there are State run agencies who are supposed to be
protecting abused children in dangerous situations. Each State has
many
different titles for them. All of them are main stapled as CPS (Child
Protective Services). For example, in one Sate they are known as DCF
(Department of Children and Families.)

While there is an important need to find abused children and to
protect
them, the current system is only finding a small percent of those
truly
abused children. The rest of their statistics that guarantee a high
departmental income are from families who never abused their
children.
Where they get this income and the sources of information will be
posted
after the next paragraph.

I am not calling for an abolishment of CPS. What I am petitioning for
is
an overhaul and restructure to bring them in line with lawful
investigation practices, to maintain Constitutional Rights and proper
training for Agents who never had children, and psychological
evaluations to find and replace the Agents who were themselves abused
as
Children and see abuse in every home regardless of the situation.
This
is not, I repeat, not a rare occurrence. I will supply statistics to
support this and how this has escalated. I will also supply the
sources.

Departmental income has become more important to CPS and their
offices
than actually finding abused children and protecting them. Each and
every time they remove a child from the home, they get paid from the
Federal Government. Here they are.

1. Public Law 93-247 known as the Mondale Act of 1974.

2. Public Law 96-272 known as the Adoption Assistance and Child
Welfare
Act of 1980

4. Social Security Title IV-E funds.

The ASFA- Public Law 105-89 known as American Safe Families Act of
1997
is one of the most horrific laws on the books today. While it sounds
nice in the title, when you get through the legal jargon, what this
means is so wrong. If you ever had a child removed from your house by
CPS, even UNFOUNDED and you are innocent, they will take that child
in
minutes after the child is born! Babies are highly adoptable and the
Federal Government pays out $6,000 to the CPS office who conducts the
legal kidnapping and gets them adopted quickly without regards to the
biological Mother and her family. Since she was investigated once,
they
do this in the "best interests of the child" as she is a "potential"
abuser.

The largest targeted type of families are folks with low incomes,
children on SSI and are minorities. If you even have one of those
three
issues, you are a target for CPS to illegally investigate you. While
these things are a surefire magnet, they have been known to do
illegal
investigations against families if they were reported falsely with
malicious intent. Example is an ex-wife wants to get even with her
ex-husband and his new family, she could report them and put them
through Hell.

Why are the reasons CPS Agents actually find so little true abuse?

1. Agents who never had children and don't understand that a few toys
in
the corner of the room is not a hazardous mess.

2. Agents are not trained in real evidence recognition. In fact, no
Agent in CPS has any training in evidence, the Constitution or
criminal
justice. They are given anywhere from 3 to 6 months of training,
being
taught that it is ok to break into a Home without probable cause or
exigent circumstances.

3. Agents are trained to use subjective speculation and not objective
factual reporting.

4. The Agents do not get psychological evaluations. A number of
Agents
who were abused as a child themselves see abuse in every home they go
into, even if it's not there.

5. Most States do not require Agents to have a degree in Social
Sciences. Any degree will do, doesn't even have to be related to the
field.

6. The Agency has no checks and balances. A field Agent can lie to a
judge or police officer with absolutely no proof and have it entered
as
factual evidence in a court of law!

7. Agents are trained to believe they are immune from the authority
of
the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth
Amendment
and Fourteenth Amendment. They violate this in every investigation
done
nationwide.

Here are the statistics and sources to support these facts.

Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the United States. These
numbers
come from The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) in
Washington.

CPS- Physical Abuse (160) Sexual Abuse (112) Neglect (410) Medical
Neglect (14) Fatalities (6.4)

Parents- Physical Abuse (59) Sexual Abuse (13) Neglect (241) Medical
Neglect (12) Fatalities (1.5)

As you can see, children are abused far more in care than at home.
The
calculated average is for every 1 abused child removed from an
abusive
home, there are 17 unabused

On Feb 8, 3:54 pm, "0:-" wrote:
On Feb 8, 2:21 pm, "Greegor" wrote:

Kane wrote

I suggest before anyone sign and send this they get into some serious
fact checking.
There are errors and outright lies in this letter. If it's taken
seriously enough they will be checked by the recipient's staff and
giving little credibility.
The claims, for the most part, are well known propaganda ploys and
most recipients will round file such letters.
Go to the trouble to find out the truth. Make your complaints to
reform CPS based on facts, not this trash.

Yes, take it from Kane, the former Oregon Caseworker and
lobbyist for the agencies to slowly, ever so slowly reform from
within.

I've never been either. I have supported relatives fostering and
adopting and acted in their behalf.

Never mind that the agencies have had over 30 years to
clean up their act.

Never mind the public has had 30 of proganda from child abusers that
want to be left alone to abuse their children without society -- their
neighbors -- interfering.



Please notice that Kane (Donald L. Fisher) says there are
factual errors but did not point out the exact errors.

We have spent years hashing this out here, and again and again I've
shown that many of the claims are errors and lies. I'm not going to
relist them all for yet another punk child abusing propagandist.

It would be his wish to tie up any action in technical trivia
and complaints vague enough they cannot be resolved,

You now have become a certified mind reader?

Why not show where I've done what you claim, Greg?

or generally intimidate Family Rights advocates in their
slow march across the land.

Intimidate?One: you are not a family rights advocate. You are lying
evil little pus pocket that has repeatedly attacked both successful
parents who have posted advice here, and NEW PARENTS THAT HAVE COME
HERE FOR HELP.

Two: Do you feel intimidated? What real Family Rights' adovocate feels
intimidated by me, Greg?

List them all here.

Kane and the hyena pack hoplessly pretend they
are Family Rights advocates in the hope they can
gently guide Family Rights AWAY from any
immediate and swiftly corrective action.

Well, what's the score on "immediate and swiftly corrective action,"
Greg?

How you doing? The little girl home now, on the 6th anniversary of her
removal to the safety of her grandparents home?

He thinks that the rights GUARANTEED in the
First portion of the US Constitution we know
as the Bill Of Rights are up for debate, discussion
and negotiation, rather than those rights being
sacred, protected and GUARANTEED, flat out.

"He" does? Odd, I seem to have an entire nation agreeing with me. The
Constitution is continually tested and interpreted Greg.

In fact that's what YOU so impotently attempt to do.

Did you know that most states have legislated
the PREPONDERANCE (51%) standard of proof
for Juvenile Court cases?

That would mean what, Greg....following your advice and forcing CPS to
go to trial to terminate people's parental rights?

Stand up in court and challenge state laws against recording others
secretly while you are involved in a child custody case.

Santosky v Kramer is controlling Federal law
that says that because of the Liberty Interest
involved in Juvenile Court cases, the legal
burden of proof is CLEAR AND CONVINCING.
(75%)

You people amaze me. I THIS your excuse for advising people to force
the state to take them to TPR, Greg?

Want to jump up in the middle of a tpr trial and scream out the name
of this case and it's finding and have the judge and everyone else
laugh at you, AND TAKE THE CHILDREN AWAY?

No DA in his or her right mind, no matter how much **** you managed to
throw, TO AVOID GETTING THE CHILD HOME EARLIER, is going to recommend
going to TPR without the evidence required, and that, little boy, is
all this case determined.

And the states STILL can remove the child during the investigation,
little boy;

Santosky v. Kramer (No. 80-5889)
___
Syllabus

Opinion
[ Blackmun ]
Dissent
[ Rehnquist ]
HTML version
PDF version HTML version
PDF version HTML version
PDF version

Syllabus

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

455 U.S. 745
Santosky v. Kramer
CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, THIRD
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
No. 80-5889 Argued: November 10, 1981 --- Decided: March 24, 1982

Under New York law, the State may terminate, over parental objection,
the rights of parents in their natural child upon a finding that the
child is "permanently neglected." The New York Family Court Act (§
622) requires that only a "fair preponderance of the evidence" support
that finding. Neglect proceedings were brought in Family Court to
terminate petitioners' rights as natural parents in their three
children. Rejecting petitioners' challenge to the constitutionality of
§ 622's "fair preponderance of the evidence" standard, the Family
Court weighed the evidence under that standard and found permanent
neglect. After a subsequent dispositional hearing, the Family Court
ruled that the best interests of the children required permanent
termination of petitioners' custody. The Appellate Division of the New
York Supreme Court affirmed, and the New York Court of Appeals
dismissed petitioners' appeal to that court.

Held:

1. Process is constitutionally due a natural parent at a state-
initiated parental rights termination proceeding. Pp. 752-757.

(a) The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care
custody, and management of their child is protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment, and does not evaporate simply because they have not been
model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the
State. A parental rights termination proceeding interferes with that
fundamental liberty interest. When the State moves to destroy weakened
familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair
procedures. Pp. 752-754.

(b) The nature of the process due in parental rights termination
proceedings turns on a balancing of three factors: the private
interests affected by the proceedings; the risk of error created by
the State's chosen procedure; and the countervailing governmental
interest supporting use of the challenged procedure. Mathews v.
Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335. In any given proceeding, the minimum
standard of proof tolerated by the due process requirement reflects
not only the weight of the public and [p746] private interests
affected, but also a societal judgment about how the risk of error
should be distributed between the litigants. The minimum standard is a
question of federal law which this Court may resolve. Retrospective
case-by-case review cannot preserve fundamental fairness when a class
of proceedings is governed by a constitutionally defective evidentiary
standard. Pp. 754-757.

2. The "fair preponderance of the evidence" standard prescribed by §
622 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp.
758-768.

(a) The balance of private interests affected weighs heavily against
use of such a standard in parental rights termination proceedings,
since the private interest affected is commanding, and the threatened
loss is permanent. Once affirmed on appeal, a New York decision
terminating parental rights is final and irrevocable. Pp. 758-761.

(b) A preponderance standard does not fairly allocate the risk of an
erroneous factfinding between the State and the natural parents. In
parental rights termination proceedings, which bear many of the
indicia of a criminal trial, numerous factors combine to magnify the
risk of erroneous factfinding. Coupled with the preponderance
standard, these factors create a significant prospect of erroneous
termination of parental rights. A standard of proof that allocates the
risk of error nearly equally between an erroneous failure to
terminate, which leaves the child in an uneasy status quo, and an
erroneous termination, which unnecessarily destroys the natural
family, does not reflect properly the relative severity of these two
outcomes. Pp. 761-766.

(c) A standard of proof more strict than preponderance of the evidence
is consistent with the two state interests at stake in parental rights
termination proceedings -- a parens patriae interest in preserving and
promoting the child's welfare and a fiscal and administrative interest
in reducing the cost and burden of such proceedings. Pp. 766-768.

3. Before a State may sever completely and irrevocably the rights of
parents in their natural child, due process requires that the State
support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence. A
"clear and convincing evidence" standard adequately conveys to the
factfinder the level of subjective certainty about his factual
conclusions necessary to satisfy due process. Determination of the
precise burden equal to or greater than that standard is a matter of
state law properly left to state legislatures and state courts. Pp.
768-770.

75 App.Div.2d 910, 427 N.Y.S.2d 319, vacated and remanded.

BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN,
MARSHALL, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, J., filed a
[p747] dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE and
O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 770.

This is ALL about TPR and has been the law for most states for a very
long time, dummy.

Do you wonder WHY states have actually
legislated a system which does NOT fulfill
such an important federal requirement
to safeguard civil rights?

Oh, really?

You can provide the statutes regarding TPR, can't you Greg, and show
where they state is not required to come up with a preponderance of
evidence, right?

WHY didn't the states
THEMSELVES legislate up to the Federal
and controlling standard required?

Interesting question. You made a ranting claim that I had not provided
specific instances of where the letter of bull**** we are discussing
lied or was in error. Well, ...

read more »