|
This is a new
published
9th
Circuit civil rights case from Oregon holding common CPS
investigation tactics to be unconstitutional under either the
4th or 14th Amendment despite evidence that the child they
sought to protect was at risk including that the father had an
open criminal case for molesting a child outside the family,
CPS claimed one of his children accused him of similar conduct
with her in the school interview and neighbors provided some
evidence that the mother knew about it. The case cites similar
rulings from other circuits. Objected to practices include:
1. Long investigation interview with child at school, especially
if a police officer is present, without a warrant, probable
cause, exigent circumstances, or parental consent. The opinion
did not turn on the facts of this case, which was the presence
of an armed police officer in the room during the CPS interview.
The decision was made based on the state child welfare laws.
This was held to be a 4th Amendment seizure violation, despite a
state statute authorizing CPS interviews at school.
2. Social worker lying to get an emergency removal order. The
claimed lie was about the mother's willingness to find another
place for husband to live. This was a 4th Amendment (unlawful
seizure) and 14th Amendments violation (due process).
3. CPS keeping a parent away from the child undergoing a sexual
assault examination, without parental consent, a legitimate
reason to exclude her, or a medical emergency. The courts say
the parents have a constitutional right to be present for
medical examinations of the child even after removal, including
inspections of the child's body by a social worker. At minimum
the parent must be at the facility with access to child
immediately after exam. This was a violation of substantive due
process rights of the mother and child under 14th Amendment,
despite a court order for the exam.
back to the top ~
back to Breaking News
~ back to
What's New
|
