My wife told me about this last weekend. Sad that the government think they have the right to do this. Child was not in danger, unlawful search?
Cops Barge Into Calif. Parents Home, Take Their Baby After They Seek 2nd Medical Op.
- Thread starter n2sooners
- Start Date
Some here are missing the point. I agree that it sounds rash, brazen, and possibly crazy but who is to stand up against the tyranny of those who ignore reason and basic rights granted by yet another? Now, I have been on both sides of these situations. Unfortunately I have seen more than my fair share of cases where CPS and the "system" has dropped the ball. However, I have also seen the same system save lives.
Here is the statute they rely on in OK: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=455568
Parse the language and you will see that Police have some say here. There is no mindless knock down the door and grab the kids allowed. It must be a reasonable suspicion and imminent threat to the safety of the child. All we need is a few level heads to consider the facts and many of these poorly handled cases could be avoided. Rather, we have the hot headed and myopic worker, medical professional or cop who fails to consider anything but the wrong path. It is a slippery slope though.
In the end, I am not sure how I would have reacted. However, you can believe they would have to break the door down. No way am I opening it up for them. That was just dumb.
Also, where is the video?
Last edited:
Yes the system has saved lives, should that excuse the scandals, criminal activity, and lack of accountability we've seen,(and paid for through the many lawsuits). Should it excuse a system that reverses the burden of proof regarding innocent till proven guilty?
As for the statute you posted that was part of the rewrite of the "Children's Code" that was brought about possibly by some things revealed at the legislative hearings that proceeded the class action lawsuit, the question is why was it changed, were things being done improperly or illegally?
And will it stand up to the "exigent circumstances" requirements laid out in the Roskas case in the 10th. Circuit. That decision says;
In Roska, parents and siblings of a Utah child removed by DCFS brought a ¤1983 civil rights lawsuit alleging, among other claims, that DCFS and the Attorney General's Office had violated their rights by removing the child without a warrant. In reviewing the trial court's dismissal of the suit on immunity grounds, the Roska court applied the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement to child welfare cases and held that, absent exigent circumstances, state child protection workers could not legally remove a child from his or her home without a warrant. The court stated:
We find no special need that renders the warrant requirement impracticable when social workers enter a home to remove a child, absent exigent circumstances....Simply put, unless the child is in imminent danger, there is no reason that it is impracticable to obtain a warrant before social workers remove a child from the home.
"unless the child is in imminent danger, there is no reason that it is impracticable to obtain a warrant before social workers remove a child from the home".
Is "in imminent danger the same as "reasonable suspicion" that imminent danger exists? Is an imminent safety threat the same as imminent danger?
328 F.3d at 1242. The Court reiterated the well-established principle that the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement "is narrow, and must be 'jealously and carefully drawn.'" Id. at 1240 (quoting U.S. v. Anderson, 154 F.3d 1225, 1233 (10th Cir. 1998)). Indeed, the Roska court held that even a social worker's decision to seek legal advice prior to removing a child negated the existence of exigent circumstances, and made proper removal contingent on a warrant. Id. at 1242.
Second, the Court ruled that in order to protect a parent's Fourteenth Amendment due process right to maintain his or her family free from state government interference, the State could not remove a child from his home without first providing the parents with notice and a hearing. While an exception was made for "extraordinary situations," the Court narrowly defined such situations as "emergency circumstances," such as where there is "an immediate threat to the safety of a child." Id. at 1245.
http://webster.utahbar.org/barjournal/2004/06/roska_and_the_warrant_requirem.html
Yeah if you have the money(justice isn't free) and can find a lawyer who will sue the state it's a breeze.
After reading the final order below and knowing Mr. Hall lost his family farm to fight his case and that his children still suffer from their time in foster care you'd think he'd be able to find a lawyer to bring a suit huh?
http://www.donhaslam.com/cases/documents/Hallfinalorder.PDF
Last edited:
Help me understand how a set of parents that recently had a child die because they were depending on prayer to heal him and denied him treatment, and these people were trying to get treatment and had this happen?
The "Child Abuse Industry" works in mysterious ways?
In a nutshell, yes. I agree.
From all the posts here I understand that the police were simply the force by which this family's child was taken? DHS/CPS? They call the shots and use cops to enforce?
Similar threads
