Feds Re-affirm Parents' Rights

Ohio Child Welfare Training ProgramCommon GroundISSUE #26, February 2004
Feds Re-affirm Parents' Rights
The recent Walsh vs. Erie County Department of Job and Family Services ruling has brought to the forefront the issue of parents' rights. In that case, it was found that the agency had overstepped it's authority during an investigation, and that caseworkers had not been trained in parent's Fourth Amendment rights.
Furthermore, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) of June 2003 re-affirms parents' rights.
What are these rights, and how do these rights impact child welfare work in Ohio? The following excerpts from a guidance paper written by Howard Davidson, Director of the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, speak to these issues.

Court calls neglect probe inappropriateBy Tim WhitmireAssociated PressLast updated: July 17. 2003 9:17AMRALEIGH - Cleveland County parents who blocked a child-neglect investigation at their home shouldn’t have been the subjects of a probe in the first place, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.The ruling came in the case of Jim and Mary Ann Stumbo of Kings Mountain, who were visited in September 1999 by county social workers. The Stumbos didn’t allow the workers to enter the home or interview their children.Investigators had received a tip that the couple’s 2-year-old daughter was running naked through their yard. The girl apparently chased a kitten into the yard and was quickly returned to the house by an older brother.James Mason, a Virginia lawyer who represented the Stumbos, said the Supreme Court opinion "really stand(s) to protect the rights of families. Under circumstances like this, the social workers shouldn’t even initiate the investigation."Mr. Mason works for the Purcellville, Va.-based Home Schooling Legal Defense Association.His group represented the Stumbos because they home-school their children and are members of the association.Officials at the N.C. Department of Social Services cautioned that they need time to examine the decision. What is there to "examine"? It's more of their "god attitude".But they said they do not believe it will prevent social workers from investigating abuse and neglect cases because DSS has improved its screening of abuse and neglect tips. ===============================NOTE- This story has now disappeared from the Wilmington Star archives-July 16, 2003N.C. Supreme Court says social workers may not force interviewsWilmington Star
Charges that two Cleveland County parents obstructed a child-neglect investigation by county social workers must be dropped because there was never any evidence Jim and Mary Ann Stumbo neglected their daughter, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
So what about RESTITUTION from the state for the years of grief and expense to the Stumbos?=====================
Here's the actual decision-
FindLaw: State Resources: North Carolina: Primary Materials: North Carolina Court Opinions**FINAL**
In the Matter of: JOANIE STUMBO, STEVEN STUMBO, SCOTT STUMBO, UNKNOWN STUMBO.
No. COA00-408
(Filed 15 May 2001)

Court spanks social workersJudges: State agents violated Constitution in corporal-punishment probePosted: April 18, 2003 1:00 a.m. EasternBy Ron Strom© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
Social workers who entered a private Christian school without a warrant and questioned a 10-year-old boy about corporal punishment violated the U.S. Constitution, a federal appeals court has ruled.
Ruling in favor of parents in Milwaukee, Wis., the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Wednesday the government employees – Carla Heck, John Wichman and supervisor Christine Hansen – in probing alleged child abuse at Greendale Baptist Academy, violated both the Fourth and 14th Amendments.
"This is a tremendous victory for parental rights," said Steve Crampton, chief counsel for the Center for Law & Policy, which represented the parents in the case – John and Jane Doe v. Carla Heck, et al.
Crampton told WND, "This decision puts a stake in the ground telling [social workers], 'The law applies to you, too.'"

4-16-03 Wisconsin 7th Circuit- Greendale Baptist Church and Academy vs Heck, Wichman, Hansen The Nazi behavior is over?

February 5, 2003Homeschool Legal Defense AssociationNeed for a search warrant trips social workersOhio authorities not aware of Fourth Amendment protections
In a forceful opinion, US District Judge James G. Carr wrote: "Despite the Defendants’ exaggerated view of their powers, the Fourth Amendment applies to them, as it does to all other officers and agents of the state whose requests to enter, however benign or well-intentioned, are met by a closed door. There is...no social worker exception to the strictures of the Fourth Amendment. ...Any agency that expects to send its employees routinely into private homes has a fundamental obligation to ensure that those employees understand the constitutional limits on their authority."
"The caseworkers in the Walsh case admitted they had never been taught anything about the Fourth Amendment or search warrants.
The court further ruled that the police did not have probable cause to detain, frisk, and threaten to arrest Walsh, since he was not breaking any law but merely asserting his "fundamental right to be left alone."
February 24, 2003Arkansas Judge affirms homeschool family's right to be left alone on charges of *environmental neglect* based on breakfast dishes left on table, and cat sleeping on laundry basket.
Arkansas Court Denies Social Workers' Attempt to Search Home
Oakland TribuneBy Donna Horowitz, Staff WriterWednesday, July 10, 2002
County pays mom $400,000 for boys' removal without warrant Deal could change how social workers treat cases
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of AppealsCALABRETTA v FLOYD
This case involves whether a social worker and a police officer were entitled to qualified immunity, for a coerced entry into a home to investigate suspected child abuse, interrogation of a child, and strip search of a child, conducted without a search warrant and without a special exigency.
Related Caselaw in the AFRA BIN
"When the people no longer read or understand their Constitution, then they will live in a POLICE STATE" -Robert Wangrud.
Child protection agencies through out the country have been operating systematically uninformed of Civil and Constitutional Rights of the people their agency is mandated to assist. Tactics in their investigations are often problematic, utilization of said tactics that are interpreted as intrusive and full of fabrication.
Officers of the Court/Law are required to take an oath to uphold, support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Many Law Enforcement Officers admittedly have no real understanding of and have not read the Constitution since high school. We have reports of parents who inquired of their Rights being told by Policemen "Those are only on TV".
In comparison, Child Protection Personnel take no such oath.
Family Court Judges openly admit that they are not conducting a Court of Constitutional Judicial Due Process.
Those employed by Child Protection Service Agencies have the empowerment to protect the Nation’s greatest asset and are considered Officers of the Courts.
Individuals who have the empowerment to remove children from predominantly loving homes without consequence regarding choices made in the process should carry the highest level of professional integrity.
Historically this is only the case in very low percentage of the cases.
There is no Liberty to defend as long as the Child Abuse Industry is in Business
There is a Real Problem in the USA
This is a system apparently ignorant of the HIGHEST LAW IN THE LAND, making WAR against the American Family, committing Conspiracy Against Rights and Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, which are Capital Offenses.
The Amendments to the Constitution are not rights GIVEN to citizens by government. American citizens are SOVEREIGN. The Amendments are the ESSENTIAL RIGHTS specifically enumerated as unalienable, meaning they CANNOT be taken away.
There is no fiction of law which can convert the natural born (sovereign) citizen of this country into a subject, unless he/she gives themselves away as a slave (waiver of rights). It has to be knowing, willing, intentionally, with full disclosure.
And that is how the Child Abuse Industry operates, without the "full disclosure" part.
If people allow a CPS caseworker to come in their house and talk with them, they have WAIVED their Constitutional Rights and Miranda Rights and are "volunteering" for "services". This is an example of EVERYBODY being ignorant of the Constitution, including CPS case workers.
CPS caseworkers often propose SICKENING THREATS if the parents refuse to let them in or refuse to "cooperate", but the moment the caseworker does so, this is coercion and they are committing Conspiracy Against Rights and Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, which are Capital Offenses.
This is why US District Judge James G. Carr wrote: "Despite the Defendants’ exaggerated view of their powers, the Fourth Amendment applies to them.."
The careless, casual destruction of an American Family is NOT a trivial matter.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This means you CANNOT disparage a parent's choice of religion and use that in your creation of an abuse/neglect case.
It further means you CANNOT "gag order" a parent from seeking other parents, counselors, or advocates to network with
Nor can you demand parents to remove advertisements from newspapers, or posters, brochures or letters, or meet to strategize defenses or bring public attention to their cases.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This means you CANNOT barge into somebody's home without a SEARCH WARRANT which must ALREADY BE signed by a judge on PROBABLE CAUSE and somebody's OATH that there is a REALLY GOOD reason to invade this family.
This means that an anonymous "Hot Line" call is NOT "Probable Cause"
This means that you have to SPECIFY exactly what you are looking for.
This means that you CANNOT just go into somebody's house on a "fishing expedition" for the purpose of LOOKING for ANYTHING to use to create a case against the family.
This also means that CHILDREN have the same rights against YOU as their parents and are entitled to the same Constitutional protections AGAINST you searching and seizing THEIR PERSONS without "Probable Cause".
From the FBI Color of Law Civil Rights Violations page- An official would violate the color of law statute by fabricating evidence against or conducting a false arrest of an individual. That person's rights of due process and unreasonable seizure have been violated. In the case of deprivation of property, the official would violate the color of law statute by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining the property (kidnapping the child) of another. In that case, the official has overstepped or misapplied his authority.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This means you had better give people their Miranda Rights before you ask a single question.
This means that you had better not THREATEN people to talk with you. You have no business threatening to TAKE THE KIDS if people refuse to SURRENDER their Constitutional Right NOT to talk with you.
This also means you had better NOT snatch the kids unless they really have been deliberately PHYSICALLY injured.
This means that KIDNAPPING THE CHILDREN from their parents and holding them hostage with their release CONTINGENT upon the parents "jumping through the hoops" of compelled "Parenting Classes", "counseling" with contractor "mental health clinicians" is DEPRIVING both the children and their parents of their lives, liberty, and property without "due process of law"
You cannot PRETEND that KIDNAPPING a child from their own home is "in their best interest". If a REAL CRIME has been committed, the perpetrator should be the one removed.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
This means that you had better tell people what the allegation is and inform them of their Miranda Rights and has Counsel present before you ask a single question.
This means that the "Anonymous Tip" probably came from somebody USING YOU to destroy a person for reasons that have NOTHING to do with any child abuse. If the "tipster" doesn't have enough guts to make a REAL accusation in person, nothing they say is credible. The accused should NOT have to guess who made the accusation and what the "tipster's" true motive is.
This means that you CANNOT HIDE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE in order to KNOWINGLY prosecute an innocent person.
This means that contrary to how it has been operating, the BURDEN OF PROOF is NOT on the accused to "prove a negative"- that NOTHING HAPPENED. And the "rubber stamp say-so" of the subjective OPINION of a mental health clinician is NOT EVIDENCE.
This means that "second hand hear-say" information is NOT evidence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
This means that YOU are NOT the Prosecution, Judge, Jury, and Executioner.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
This means that YOU are NOT the Prosecution, Judge, Jury, and Executioner.
From the FBI Color of Law Civil Rights Violations page-The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process and the Eighth Amendment also prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. In an arrest or detention context, these rights would prohibit the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The idea being that a person accused of a crime is to be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.
What do you think the compelled parenting classes, psych evals and continuous meetings that conflict with jobs are- if they ARE NOT punishment and a summary judgment? And by the time YOU are done "piling charges" and Assassinating parent's characters, they can never get a job again.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Which means that THE PEOPLE HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS. CPS workers have NONE
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment XIV
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
From the FBI Color of Law Civil Rights Violations page-The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process and the Eighth Amendment also prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. In an arrest or detention context, these rights would prohibit the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The idea being that a person accused of a crime is to be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.

LEGAL ABUSE SYNDROMEBy Karin Huffer M.S., MFTThe book, Legal Abuse Syndrome written by Karin Huffer is the result of her experiences for over twenty years as a marriage and family counselor in private practice. What is unique about this book is that it addresses the victims of legal abuse from a psychological therapeutic perspective. Ms. Huffer found that many victims of the legal system suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. She identified this as Legal Abuse Syndrome, brought on by the abusive and protracted litigation, prevalent in our courts.
Oppression and abuse of power are injurious to the health of the victims. Domination by abusers of bureaucratic power threatens the very functionality of the public and private sections in our country.
AFRA's Social Workers respond
When child abuse investigations are conducted by people whose main goal is to dig up dirt on a family to assassinate their character and desire for every family to be in "therapy," you end up with a mess- this mess we have right now of incompetence and corruption.- Leonard Henderson Oregon Family Rights
An investigation should be conducted solely on the basis of determining whether a CRIME has been committed or not. It's not about "feelings" or "opinions" or what might happen. If we are going try to prevent crimes that might happen before they happen, you end up with a smothering tyranny.