Cps parental rights handbook

Social workers are not exempt from the requirements of the Fourth Amendment when they act alone. They are not exempt from its rules if they are accompanied by a police officer.

And police officers are not exempt from the requirement even if all they do is get the front door open for the social worker. What are the 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 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. 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. 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. 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.

A grandfather called in a hotline complaint with two totally separate allegations of sexual abuse. 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. They found the claims to be utterly spurious. 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. State Department of Human Resources, So. 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, U. 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. 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, U. 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.

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. An anonymous tip standing alone did not meet the standard of cause shown. 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. 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. 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.

If CPS shows up at your door and tells you they need to speak with you and your children, you have the legal right to deny them entry under the 4th and 14th Amendment. But before they leave, you should bring your children to the door but never open it, instead show them the children are not in imminent danger and that they are fine.

If you do not at least show them your children, they could come back with an unlawful and unconstitutional warrant even though your children are not in imminent danger. You also need to know that if the focus of the investigation is on your spouse or significant other you may think you may not be charged with anything and that you are the non-offending spouse, WRONG. If your spouse gets charged with anything, you are probably going to get charged with allowing it to happen.

What you say will more then likely not be written down the way you said it or meant it. CPS routinely will take what you say out of context and actually lie in their reports in order to have a successful prosecution of their case. They have an end game in mine and they will misrepresent the facts and circumstances surrounding what may or may not have happened. Something similar happened to the authors where DCF employees lied in front of the judge. They said the husband was a victim of domestic violence even though all five members of the family stated clearly that there was never any domestic violence.

The husband would like to know when this occurred because it did not happen when he was there. They will also misrepresent the condition of your home even if you were sick or injured and did not have a chance to straighten anything out. CPS will not put anything exculpatory in the record so anyone that reads her notes will read that the house was a mess and cluttered.

Never give them a chance to falsify the record or twist your words. The best advice we can offer is before letting any CPS official in your home, if you choose to do so, is to tell them you want your attorney there when they come and schedule a time for the meeting.

Removing a child from a safe home is more harmful then most alleged allegations as stated by many judges. They will lie and say they have to come in and you have to comply. Remember CPS has no statutory authority to enter your home when no crime has been committed. They are trained to lie to you to get in any way they can and this comes from interviewing employees at DCF. Do not sign anything or agree to anything even if you are not guilty and you agree to go through some horse and pony show.

That will be used against you as if you admitted to it. The case plan or whatever they call it in your state is essentially a plea of guilty to the charges. You are assisting them in their case against you and in your own prosecution if you sign their agreements, case plan or menu.

Demand a trial at the very first hearing and never stipulate to anything. Force them to prove you are guilty. Do not willingly admit to it by signing a case plan. Do not believe it. This will only speed up the process of terminating your parental rights.

Yes they are. Erie County Dept. If it is unlawful and unconstitutional for the police who are government officials, likewise it is for CPS employees who are also government officials.

The social workers, Darnold and Brown, then argued that they are obligated under law to investigate any reported case of child abuse, and that supersedes the Fourth Amendment. That statute imposes a duty on certain designated professionals and persons who work with children or provide child care to report instances of apparent child abuse or neglect. There likewise can be no doubt that occasions arise calling for immediate response, even without prior judicial approval.

But those instances are the exception. Otherwise child welfare workers would have a free pass into any home in which they have an anonymous report or poor housekeeping, overcrowding, and insufficient medical care and, thus perception that children may be at some risk.

The police officers, Chandler and Kish, claimed that they could not be sued because they thought the social workers were not subject to the Fourth Amendment, and they were just helping the social workers. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case, Calabretta v. Floyd, 9th Cir. A reasonable official would understand that they could not enter the home without consent or a search warrant. We held in White v. Pierce County F. And within those documents, the people have the constitutional right to hold the government accountable when it does deny its citizens their rights under the law even if it is CPS, the police, or government agency, or local, state, or federal government.

Koehler Family, filed December 18, , the Appellate court granted the emergency application on February 6, , to stay DYFS illegal entry that was granted by the lower court because DYFS in their infinite wisdom thought it was their right to go into the Koehler home because the children were not wearing socks in the winter or sleep in beds. After reviewing the briefs of all the parties, the appellate court ruled that the order to investigate the Koehler home was in violation of the law and must be reversed.

Williams, F. Iowa district Court for Polk County, Id. THE U. The decision in the case of Doe et al, v. Heck et al No. Lexis will affect the manner in which law enforcement and child protective services investigations of alleged child abuse or neglect are conducted. Considering that one critical purpose of the early stages of an investigation is to determine whether or not the child is in danger, and if so, from who seems to require a high threshold level of evidence to commence the interview of a child, whether the child is on private or public property.

See State v. Hatter, N. Another recent 9th Circuit case also held that there is no exception to the warrant requirement for social workers in the context of a child abuse investigation. But none of the regulations cited say that the social worker may force her way into a home without a search warrant in the absence of any emergency.

Good v. Dauphin County Social Servs. Good holds that a search warrant or exigent circumstances, such as a need to protect a child against imminent danger of serious bodily injury, was necessary for an entry without consent, and the anonymous tip claiming bruises was in the case insufficient to establish special exigency.

The 9th Circuit further opined in Wallis v. Spencer, F. The fact that the suspected crime may be heinous — whether it involves children or adults — does not provide cause for the state to ignore the rights of the accused or any other parties. Otherwise, serious injustices may result. 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. This was the case involving DCF in Connecticut. Many of their policies are unlawful and contradictory to the Constitution. DCF has unlawful polices giving workers permission to coerce, intimidate and to threatened innocent families with governmental intrusion and oppression with police presences to squelch and put down any citizen who asserts their 4th Amendment rights by not allowing an unlawful investigation to take place in their private home when no imminent danger is present.

This idea of not complying with the 4th and 14th Amendments is so impregnated in their statutes, policies, practices and customs. It affects all and what they do. DCF takes on the persona of the feeling of exaggerated power over parents and that they are totally immune. Further, that they can do basically do anything they want including engaging in deception, misrepresentation of the facts and lying to the judge.

This happens thousands of times every day in the United States where the end justifies the mean even if it is unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional. CPS workers have lied in reports and court documents, asked others to lie, and kidnapped children without court orders.

They even have crossed state lines impersonating police, kidnapping children and then were prosecuted for their actions. There are also a number of documented cases where the case worker killed the child. It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even killed at the hands of Child Protective Services.

The following statistics represent the number of cases per , children in the United States and includes DCF in Connecticut. Imagine that, 6. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and death than any human being combined.

CPS nationwide is guilty of more human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a bunch of social workers.

This statement came in a case, which held that social workers who, in pursuit of a child abuse investigation, invaded a family home without a warrant violating the Fourth Amendment rights of both children and parents. Contrary to the assumption of hundreds of social workers, the Ninth Circuit held that the Fourth Amendment applies just as much to a child abuse investigation as it does to any criminal or other governmental investigation. Police officers are not exempt from the requirement even if all they do is get the front door open for the social worker; this would be intimidation, coercion and threatening.

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. Consent to warrantless entry must be voluntary and not the result of duress or coercion. Lack of intelligence, not understanding the right not to consent, or trickery invalidate voluntary consent. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, US Lion Boulos v. Wilson, F. Citizens do not forfeit their constitutional rights when they are coerced to comply with a request that they would prefer to refuse.

Florida v. Bostick, US Coercive or intimidating behavior supports a reasonable belief that compliance is compelled. Cassady v. Tackett, F. Coercion can be mental as well as physical.

Blackburn v. Alabama, US 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. 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.

Anonymous phone calls cannot stand the test of probable cause as defined within the 14th Amendment and would fail in court on appeal. The social worker s would lose their qualified immunity for their deprivation of rights and can be sued.

The Calabretta court held the same thing, as have numerous other decisions, which have faced the issue directly. No warrant shall be issued but on probable cause.

Children are not well served if they are subjected to investigations base on false allegations. 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 is well known. Personal vendettas, neighborhood squabbles, disputes on the Little League field, child custody battles, revenge, nosey individuals who are attempting to impose their views on others are turned into maliciously false allegations breathed into a hotline.

In a government of laws, existence of government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for the law.

It invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. Olmstead, U. We the people of the United States are ruled by law, not by feelings. If the courts allow states and their agencies to rule by feelings and not law, we become a nation without law that makes decisions based on subjectivity and objectivity.

CPS has been allowed to bastardize and emasculate the Constitution and the rights of its citizens to be governed by the rule of men rather then the rule of law. It allows those individuals to have a safe haven to file fraudulent reports and CPS aids and abets in this violation of fundamental rights.

Yes it is illegal and an unconstitutional practice to remove children which results in punishing the children and the non-offending parent as stated. In a landmark class action suit in the U. District Judge Jack Weinsein ruled on Nicholson v. Williams, Case No. Judge Weistein ruled that the practice is unconstitutional and he ordered it stopped.

During the trial, several leading national experts testified on the impact on children of witnessing domestic violence, and the impact on children of being removed from the non-offending parent. Views of Experts on Effects of Domestic Violence on Children, and defining witnessing domestic violence by children as maltreatment or emotional neglect is a mistake. Concerned about the risk adult domestic violence poses for children, some child protection agencies in the United States appear to be defining exposure to domestic violence as a form of child…Defining witnessing as maltreatment is a mistake.

Doing so ignores the fact that large numbers of children in these studies showed no negative development problems and some showed evidence of strong coping abilities. Wolf testified that disruptions in the parent-child relationship might provoke fear and anxiety in a child and diminish his or her sense of stability and self. Thus, for younger children whose sense of time is less keenly developed, short periods of parental absence may seem longer than for older children.

Tr See also Ex. For those children who are in homes where there is domestic violence, disruption of that bond can be even more traumatic than situations where this is no domestic violence. Another serious implication of removal is that it introduces children to the foster care system, which can be much more dangerous and debilitating than the home situation. Stark testified that foster homes are rarely screened for the presence of violence, and that the incidence of abuse and child fatality in foster homes is double that in the general population.

Tr ; Ex. Children in foster care often fail to receive adequate medical care. Yes they do, children have standing to sue for their removal after they reach the age of majority.

Parents also have legal standing to sue if CPS violated their 4th and 14th Amendment rights. Children have a Constitutional right to live with their parents without government interference. Brokaw v. Mercer County, 7th Cir. Ward v. San Jose, 9th Cir. Morgan, 7th Cir. The forced separation of parent from child, even for a short time, represents a serious infringement upon the rights of both. Washington county, 10th Cir. Scan Volunteer Services, Inc. CPS has no legal right to enter your home or speak to you and your child when there in no imminent danger present.

Know your choices; you can refuse to speak to any government official whether it is the police or CPS as long as there is an open criminal investigation. In some cases, CPS caseworkers will leave out this information. Regardless of whether it is intentional or accidental, parents have the right to know the exact allegations that have been made against them.

Having to deal with CPS can be scary for any parent because there is a chance that their child can be taken away. It is important that parents stay calm and compose during these situations.

Noncompliance with investigation procedures may give caseworkers more reason to look into a case or worsen the situation. But no matter how serious the allegations are, CPS workers must always act within the legal scope of conduct. Remember that you always have rights! Understanding your rights will help you best advocate yourself in these situations and prevent them from being violated. When dealing with child abuse or neglect allegations, you have the right to;.

If you feel that your rights have been violated or if there are other concerns with the actions of the agency, you may contact ;. Another way to ensure that everything goes as smoothly and stress-free as possible, it is highly advised that parents consult with an attorney to look over the rights and figure out available legal options.

If you or a loved one has been dealing with CPS or child custody issues, we invite you to contact us at Pride Legal for legal counseling or any further questions. To protect your rights, hire someone who understands them. View All News. What is Child Protective Services?

When dealing with child abuse or neglect allegations, you have the right to; Know what they are alleged of Refuse CPS from entering their homes Refuse to answer questions Any statement can be taken and used against you, or taken out of context.

Ask for an interpreter This right is available to parents who are unable to efficiently communicate in English or are more comfortable speaking another language Seek legal counsel Attend all court hearings about the case Appeal for place instead of removal Once a court has issued a removal, parents may need to go through legal ramifications processes that can be very time-consuming. Instead, a place will temporarily place the child with another family member.

The social worker gathers information to find out whether safety concerns exist. This is called a Child Protection Assessment. Here is what to expect in a Child Protection Assessment:. Meeting with the social worker gives the family a chance to share their views, identify family needs, ask questions, and get feedback.

If parents or caregivers choose not to speak with a social worker or refuse a social worker entry into their home, the assessment may continue as required by law.

If the child is considered to be at risk of serious harm, the CPS social worker may consider contacting the police for help or asking the court to require a family's cooperation. The CPS social worker will assist your family in providing for the safety of your child ren within your home, whenever possible. If for the child's safety, it becomes necessary for the court to separate the family, then the person alleged to be responsible for the abuse or neglect may need to temporarily leave the home, or the child may need to live with relatives or in foster care, until it is safe for the child to return home.

Parenting can be very hard. When parents take time to care for themselves, they are better able to manage challenges. Learn to recognize signs of stress and take time out to take care of yourself.

You may want to:. You are the most important person in your child's life. Ways to show your children that you care:. All children have the need and right to be nurtured and live safely in their homes.

They have the right to:. Children who are the subject of a court order related to child protection have additional rights. These rights include:. When Child Protective Services seeks custody of a child through court action, parents have the right to:. CPS investigators are not required to give you notice before their home visit. In most cases, social workers show up unannounced when you least expect it. While you may know that a CPS investigation is underway, you may not know exactly when a caseworker will arrive for a home inspection.

If you are aware of an ongoing investigation, it is in your best interests to contact Copperas Cove CPS lawyer to protect your rights and prevent social workers from taking your children. CPS social workers do not need your permission to talk to your children alone, especially if you are being accused of child abuse or sexual assault. Many parents mistakenly believe that CPS caseworkers have no right to speak with their kids without their permission.

Abusive parents often force their children to lie to caseworkers, which is why CPS may want to talk to children alone. However, CPS social workers can lawfully ask any questions as long as they are not discriminatory. Note: If English is not your native language, you can exercise your right to have an interpreter.

Anything you say during an investigation will be used against you.