I don't care what your fantasy justification is for trashing the Bill of Rights, because it is IN FACT a fantasy. If the behavior of the parents does not warrant arrest, then the likelihood of the efficacy of protective custody is vanishingly small, even in inner cities. The massive problem you imply justifies such action DOES NOT EXIST. You should change your screen name, BTW, it does not befit your preferences.
The myth upon which you rely is no different than the early stories that came out of New Orleans. We all believed them, because we internally understood the disaster the welfare state has made of the black family. In fact, before any of that massive program to rear more indentured Democrat constituents arose, the black family had a lower rate of divorce and illegitimacy than did whites. What you are seeing and using as justification is, in large part, the PRODUCT of a government social services system. The consequences are inherent to any socialized commons: the asset that justifies its existence. No amount of "we Republicans can do it better" will EVER fix that fact. It is time to shut it down, bury it, and start over.
We don't know what transpired the first time CPS visited the house an requested entry without a warrant.
Get it through your thick skull (because I have written this at least three times), CPS has never visited that house. A case worker requested a warrant on the basis of the initial notification from the mother of the sitter, relying upon NOTHING more than hearsay from a teenage kid detailing an empty room and the smell of urine.
If they said they would seek a warrant and then return, and the father responded with threats to forcibly defy the warrant and/or to hide the child before they got back, then it was reasonable for police to arrive with the warrant and simultaneously seize the children.
Your little fantasy here didn't happen. The warrant was issued from the bench upon receipt of the request from the case worker. The police then went to the house. The mother saw the cars and kept driving until she could find out what was happening.
Neither you nor I know what evidence they may have presented to the court in support of their request, so we can't know whether it was reasonable for the court to issue the warrant.
I know what witnesses, including others than the Johnsons, told me. These include home school families who live on the same street and often visit with those kids. It's better than CPS has got.
It is not standard procedure to give suspected criminals advance notice of warrants to arrest them or to enter their home or business and seize materials as evidence, especially when there is reason to believe that they may try to flee or destroy/hide evidence.
In a CPS taking there is often no crime involved at all. It's a civil case backed by police power, a concept so far from the powers granted to any government by the Constitution as to be laughable.
The father has now had a hearing, and his move to quash the warrant was denied. He was unable to provide evidence that the court found more compelling than the state's evidence.
I am told he was not allowed to offer ANY evidence. The ruling was strictly upon the basis of whether the warrant had complied with procedure.
His hiding of the children did not help his case.
That's not what the other parents in the audience whose kids were abducted have said, nor did the lady who used to run that CPS office. IMO, his chances of getting justice were so low as to warrant his choice. It's that far out of control.
I don't see how we can have anymore due process than this.
A pure strawman of your own concoction.
This excerpt from the father's own account of events, clearly indicates that he had some contact, either in person or over the phone, with DCFS, before they sought, obtained, and exercised a warrant. You seem to think the babysitter's mother called police, and with no further ado, DCFS got a warrant and headed for the house with police to grab the kids. This is not the case. That the father skims over his initial contact with DCFS, does not suggest that the content of that contact was insignificant. I suspect that it's very significant, and that's why he's leaving out any details. The mother already knew police were coming for the kids, before she saw them in her rearview mirror. That's why she already had them in the car.
That's not what the other parents in the audience whose kids were abducted have said
Just how many parents in your neighborhood have had children "abducted" by DCFS? I know it does happen, but large clusters within a small area sure are uncommon. If there really is an out of control DCFS in your area, that has been grabbing kids without good reason for some time, why haven't some of these parents mounted a serious legal challenge? Individual parents challenging these things are often fighting an impossibly steep uphill battle, but a sizeable group doing a class action suit, should be able to rectify the problem. HSLDA should be quite eager to take on such a suit. Unless of course, the "abductions" really were warranted, and the area just has an unusually high concentration of dangerously wacko parents.