Child Protective Services and Police Interference with Family Relations: A Constitutional Perspective
Child Abuse, Family Rights, and The Child Protective System (Stephen M. Krason, ed., 2013)
46 Pages Posted: 12 Jun 2012 Last revised: 23 Jul 2013
Michael E. Rosman
Center for Individual Rights
Date Written: June 8, 2012
Abstract
The Constitution protects the rights of families from interference. This paper introduces the reader to the application of the Constitution to situations in which a state actor – usually a representative of a Child Protective Services-type agency or a police officer – has interfered with a family’s right to be together, or a parent’s right to make decisions for a child, prior to the family (or parent) having the opportunity to defend itself (or himself) in court. The general constitutional rule is that notice and a hearing are required before state actors can effect any such interference, even temporary interference. Accordingly, the kind of interference examined in this paper ought to be a rare exception, available only when there is reasonable basis to believe that a substantial, negative outcome will occur (most often, to a child) before a fair hearing can take place. I suggest that, given the speed with which judicial hearings can be held in this day and age, there are few instances in which such hearings are properly delayed. The cases studied suggest that the right to family integrity is too frequently violated by overzealous members of the child protection community, with little or inadequate check from the judiciary.
Keywords: constitutional law, substantive due process, child abuse, child neglect, CPS
Sunday, January 27, 2019
Monday, January 14, 2019
NOTICE WHEN ONE PARENT OBSTRUCTS YOUR RIGHT TO CUSTODY OF YOUR CHILDREN. Get Ready for Battle. Get a lawyer.
. . . .the offending parent may be doing more than just trying to be a thorn in your side. . . . they might be planning to shift from acting passive-aggressively to outright aggressively.
She explains, “When the violating parent creates a pattern of conduct (Habitual Violation of the Agreement) I advise clients to “get ready for battle”. This is oftentimes an indication that the violating parent is building a case to make a change of the custodial arrangement.
. . . .the offending parent may be doing more than just trying to be a thorn in your side. . . . they might be planning to shift from acting passive-aggressively to outright aggressively.
She explains, “When the violating parent creates a pattern of conduct (Habitual Violation of the Agreement) I advise clients to “get ready for battle”. This is oftentimes an indication that the violating parent is building a case to make a change of the custodial arrangement.
Thursday, January 3, 2019
The Appointment of Minor’s Counsel Must Stop
Appointing minor’s counsel to represent the child in a family custody dispute is the single most destructive action the Court can take.
There are four primary problems with the appointment of minor’s counsel to represent the child:
1.) Appointing minor’s counsel introduces two prominent sources of bias into the legal proceedings that favor one side over the other;
2.) The appointment of minor’s counsel introduces, incites, colludes with, and supports pathological processes within the family to the detriment of the child;
3.) By introducing, inciting, and supporting the family’s psychopathology, the appointment of minor’s counsel undermines and can fully nullify therapeutic efforts to resolve family psychopathology;
4.) In failing to comprehend the complexity of developmental immaturity during childhood and adolescence, appointing a minor’s counsel offers an overly simplistic effort at a solution that will result in misguided advocacy by minor’s counsel for positions that are contrary to the child’s best interests and healthy development.
Second Source of Bias
The second source of inherent bias introduced by the appointment of minor’s counsel is in favor of pathological family processes over healthy family processes.
The appointment of minor’s counsel to represent the child fails to appreciate the complexity of family relationship dynamics, and two particular family relationship patterns are of particular concern relative to the appointment of minor’s counsel, 1) a role-reversal relationship in which the child is being used to gratify and meet the emotional and psychological needs and the psychopathology of the parent, and 2) the child’s triangulation into the spousal conflict through the formation of a cross-generational parent-child coalition of the child with one parent against the other parent.
Appointing minor’s counsel to represent the child in a family custody dispute is the single most destructive action the Court can take.
There are four primary problems with the appointment of minor’s counsel to represent the child:
1.) Appointing minor’s counsel introduces two prominent sources of bias into the legal proceedings that favor one side over the other;
2.) The appointment of minor’s counsel introduces, incites, colludes with, and supports pathological processes within the family to the detriment of the child;
3.) By introducing, inciting, and supporting the family’s psychopathology, the appointment of minor’s counsel undermines and can fully nullify therapeutic efforts to resolve family psychopathology;
4.) In failing to comprehend the complexity of developmental immaturity during childhood and adolescence, appointing a minor’s counsel offers an overly simplistic effort at a solution that will result in misguided advocacy by minor’s counsel for positions that are contrary to the child’s best interests and healthy development.
Second Source of Bias
The second source of inherent bias introduced by the appointment of minor’s counsel is in favor of pathological family processes over healthy family processes.
The appointment of minor’s counsel to represent the child fails to appreciate the complexity of family relationship dynamics, and two particular family relationship patterns are of particular concern relative to the appointment of minor’s counsel, 1) a role-reversal relationship in which the child is being used to gratify and meet the emotional and psychological needs and the psychopathology of the parent, and 2) the child’s triangulation into the spousal conflict through the formation of a cross-generational parent-child coalition of the child with one parent against the other parent.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)