Posted on 06/18/2002 7:15:19 AM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A woman whose son was erroneously removed by Child Protective Services has filed a civil lawsuit against Sacramento County demanding social workers be barred from taking children from their parents unless they have proof the children are in imminent danger.
Repercussions from the family's case, which was the subject of a separate appeals court decision last year, have prompted the county to re-examine its definition of child abuse and have fanned the debate about a parent's right to spank.
Tricia McLinden's 12-year-old son was placed in protective custody in September 1999, and spent nearly two years living in a series of foster and group homes before a state appellate court threw out the case and ordered the boy returned home.
McLinden's civil lawsuit, filed in Sacramento Superior Court last month, alleges CPS violated her constitutional rights to be free from governmental interference and the unreasonable seizure of her child. It seeks unspecified monetary damages.
The boy was returned home in May 2001, after the state's 3rd District appellate court ruled his mother's attempts to discipline him by spanking him with a belt and confining him to his room did not constitute abuse.
At the time, social workers were asking that McLinden's parental rights be severed permanently.
"We don't sue social workers for making mistakes," said McLinden's attorney, Donnie R. Cox of Oceanside. "What this case is about is making a mistake and then continuing the process when (social workers) knew they should send the kid home."
CPS officials acknowledged that a heavy volume of new cases in 1999, coupled with a critical shortage of social workers, might have hastened the decision to remove the boy and could have resulted in a cursory investigation.
Even so, the director of the county's Department of Health and Human Services, Jim Hunt, said the agency's actions had withstood review by a juvenile court referee and later by a juvenile court judge.
He said the appellate ruling helps clarify how far parents can go in disciplining their children. Using it as a guideline, CPS will reconsider its spanking policy, said Hunt, who first became aware of the unpublished ruling last week.
Until now, Hunt said, CPS considered a permissible spanking one in which a parent struck a child's bottom with an open hand. Using a belt or a switch or producing visible injuries was considered abuse worthy of CPS intervention, though not necessarily removal.
The boy was placed in foster care after telling school officials that his mother beat him, and showing his principal a faded 1-by-3-inch purple bruise on his lower back, according to court records.
McLinden's son told the social worker that his mother often hit him with a belt and locked him in his bedroom for hours at a time. The social worker decided the boy was at imminent risk of harm and placed him in protective custody.
Though some of her son's claims are in dispute, McLinden readily acknowledged she had spanked him with a belt and locked him in his room to control his behavior. She described her son as an angry, aggressive child who hurt other children, assaulted a teacher, stole her money, forged her checks to buy junk food and forged school progress reports.
McLinden's civil suit claims social workers denied her federal right to due process by supporting their case with deliberately fabricated charges, namely that her son could not leave his room to use the bathroom and was not allowed to have friends.
Cox said that because child welfare cases are held to a lesser standard of proof than criminal cases, social workers often don't do as thorough a job investigating cases as their counterparts in law enforcement.
McLinden's suit also claims the county deliberately excluded information from her case that would have provided context for the discipline, specifically that she had sought advice from school officials and tried other methods before resorting to corporal punishment.
Her case in many ways illustrates the conflicting views in America's ongoing debate about corporal punishment. As evidenced by various court rulings in her case, the issue is far from settled at the judicial level, leaving parents and social workers without clear guidelines.
The appellate court overturned both the decisions of a juvenile court referee and a juvenile court judge, quoting state law that specifies "reasonable, age-appropriate spanking ... in the absence of serious physical injury" is not abuse.
Armed with the ruling, McLinden filed a claim against Sacramento County in October, a required step before filing a lawsuit. The claim was denied.
Now, McLinden is seeking a court injunction against CPS removals of children in similar cases. Her claim alleges county authorities routinely act "with deliberate indifference to their duties and obligations" to fully investigate child abuse claims.
County officials say that isn't true.
"The requested injunctive relief doesn't sound much different from what the law is," Hunt said. "And we follow the law."
You're not defending Reno and Clinton's action at Waco are you? That was exactly the type of government abuse that's in this story, a lot harsher but still heavy handed and unconstitutional.
I prefer a wooden dowel for a swat on the rear. THe "state" doesn't dictate what is used to spank a child. YOu clearly misunderstood what is going on and injected your own bias. Re-read this story. BTW, the "state" doesn't have the right to dictate how a parent punishes a child. Their only concern is that serious injury is not the result. A loving parent SPANKS their child and doesn't inflict permanent injury. An unloving parent uses the ineffective "reason me silly" verbal approach and then wonders why their child is out of control and ill behaved.
Since you appear to have been exposed to law as it is practiced in the real world, would you be kind enough to scan it and tell me where it rates on the bull5hit meter? I'm guessing fairly high. Yet, it seems the government is using some trick that the public doesn't understand to compel us to jump through more and more bureaucratic hoops, and submit to more restrictions. Such that now we don't even feel that we can discipline our children with corporeal punishment, or if we do, had better do it in private as if we know we are doing something we can get in trouble for if seen. That not freedom to raise your child. And the guys at the link may be grasping at straws to come up with an explanation and a cure. It may be BS and it may make them look like wacked out weirdos. But I can see what it is that is driving them to it: the tightening of the government boa constrictor around them, around us all.
If there are any lawyers or even judges at freerepublic who care to comment, please do.
Regards
If you think that is a travisty of justice, how about this:
Did you know that in some states if you are found guilty (by any means) of child abuse because you spank a child you have to register as a SEX OFFENDER even though you did NOT commit a sex crime?
No, didn't know that about laws in some states but more important I'm suprised you found this thread, completely forgot I had posted it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.