There once was an investigation
based on untrue information
That ol' Bill of Rights is oft ignored in these fights,
by accepting anonymous accusation
Marla's hot-button entry on how to deal with a convicted child molester in the church brought back memories of my own experince being falsely accused of child abuse. (This is really not related to Marla's story except that it jogged my own memory, and it is not intended to comment further on that case - the comments she received, though, were very interesting and thoughtful).
Years ago, when Moppet 1 was about two years old, a friend and I found ourselves back in touch with an old acquaintance (one who had been less than trustworthy in the past) but who claimed to now "be a Christian". We set up a lunch date with this woman, and she was welcomed into my home.
The next day there was a note on my door from the CPS. I called them and was told there had been an allegation of child abuse against me. The next night a social worker came to our house, and we were told that an anonymous person (identity withheld for their protection) had made these accusations:
- That my daughter had no clothes
- That my daughter played in human waste on the floor
- That my daughter was fed food that the cats ate
Despite the fact that the accuser remained anonymous, we *knew* who made the accusation because the allegations were twisted from what the above-mentioned woman had seen occur in our home:
- That my little daughter liked to run around naked in the hot California summer
- That she was learning to use the potty, and once peed on the floor
- That we went out for coffee without fully cleaning up after lunch, and when we came home the cats were on the table eating from the chicken carcasse
So, because of this, these people came into my house, my daughter had to be examined naked and the inside of our refrigerator had to be investigated.
The BIll of Rights clearly states that:
1) People (are) to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, (this) 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
2) to be confronted with the witnesses against him (this is said in the case of a criminal trial), but child abuse, when first alleged, is considered a civil case, not a criminal case. That's why there is no such thing as due process in child abuse accusations.
Now, it might seem easy to say in my case, "All's well that ends well". The social worker who came to our house was friendly enough, and even spoke of how many abuse allegations are false, and of course, they looked around our place and saw no evidence of abuse or neglect. But what if we had not made an appointment, and they had shown up after a week of stomach flu, with the house a mess, dishes in the sink, and the smell of vomit and dirty diapers in the air? Based on the determination of the person "visiting", my little daughter could have been taken from my home with no warrant and no formal charge of a crime against me.
It has been said that hard cases make bad law, and I think that is what we are seeing today in these cases. Fundamental liberties that Americans have taken for granted for years can suddenly disappear in the face of abuse allegations, all in the name of "protecting children". Protecting children is a good thing, but really, *protection* is not a function of the law, nor is protection something the law can provide. The law steps in when a person has already been harmed, and investigates to see it can be determined who caused the harm. Then, in our system of law, which holds (in theory) that people are innocent until proven guilty, there are many safeguards to ensure that those who are accused of a crime are treated fairly. These safeguards were put in place in the Constitution because the Founders knew and feared excessive government intervention in the personal lives of people, because they knew that it is in the nature of States to expand their power.
Please, don't misunderstand me and say that I don't care about children, which seems to be a common knee-jerk reaction to saying that the Child Protective Services in this country are (at best) unaccountable or (at worst) totally unconstitutional. This is the same reaction that often comes when one says they think public education should be abolished..."Don't you think children should be educated?". This kind of reaction is called the either/or fallacy or the false dilemma.
"Regardless of the fact that actual abusive behavior by parents already falls almost completely under criminal sanctions in force for centuries - assault, murder, criminal negligence and so on - many people object to leaving child abuse under regular criminal law, even when this would maintain constitutional safeguards, which have historically served as a barrier shielding the private sphere of the family from dangerously excessive governmental power"
from Who Owns the Children by Blair Adams
Parents who abuse their children (or people who are accused of abusing other people's children) are entitled to the same legal safeguards that are given to anyone accused of any less emotional crime. Although the private nature of the family can make proving these cases difficult, that is not a reason to throw out all the legal process and protections that have been a hallmark of American law.
