CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
Protective parents are stripped of their most fundamental rights when their seeking safety results in surveillance, punishment, and family separation. Every child has the right to remain in their home with a safe caregiver, and every parent has the right to defend their family from harm without fear of retaliation by the state. When these rights are denied, the system perpetuates trauma instead of preventing it.
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS
Due process guarantees fair procedures, notice, and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the government interferes with a person’s fundamental rights. In child welfare "failure to protect" cases, children are often taken into state custody before parents have a chance to review the concerns or participate in a hearing, limiting their ability to defend their family from irreversible harm.
U.S. Constitution, 5th Amendment
​“No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”
​
Parents have the right to defend their rights
before they are taken away.
CASE LAW
Croft v. Westmoreland
County Children & Youth Services
​
“The state may not interfere in the familial relationship unless it has some definite and articulable evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that a child has been abused.”
103 F.3d 1123 (3d Cir. 1997)
Wallis v. Spencer
​
“The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that parents will not be separated from their children without due process of law except in emergencies.”
​
“When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.”
Santosky v. Kramer:
Smith v. Williams-Ash
520 F.3d 596 (6th Cir. 2008)
“Removing a child from the custody of her parent without a hearing and without proof of imminent danger violated clearly established due process rights.”
RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND SECURITY IN THE HOME
Families have the right to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion into their homes and private lives. When CPS conducts coercive investigations or removes children without lawful basis, it violates the protection families are guaranteed.
U.S. Constitution, 4th Amendment
​“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”
A victim's home is not a public case file.
CASE LAW
Demaree v. Pederson
887 F.3d 870, 879 (9th Cir. 2018)
“The removal and ongoing monitoring of children without reasonable cause constitutes an unlawful government intrusion into the sanctity of the family.”
Keates v. Koile
883 F.3d 1228, 1246 (9th Cir. 2018)
“A warrantless home entry or investigation is only reasonable if officials have specific evidence of imminent danger."
Calabretta v. Floyd
189 F.3d 808, 816–17 (9th Cir. 1999)
“The Fourth Amendment applies to social workers just as it does to law enforcement. There is no social worker exception… Consent gained by threat or coercion is not consent.”
Croft v. Westmoreland CYS
103 F.3d 1123, 1126–27 (3d Cir. 1997)
"The government may not interfere in the private life of a family on the basis of allegations that are not supported by reasonable evidence."
RIGHT TO PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
A legal system grounded in fairness requires that the government prove wrongdoing before punishing a person. In family policing, survivors are often treated as inherently negligent and forced to prove their innocence based solely on the existence of domestic violence in the home.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11(1)
“Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty…”
If every perpetrator is innocent until proven guilty,
Every victim must be innocent until proven guilty.
CASE LAW
Santosky v. Kramer
455 U.S. 745, 766 (1982)
“Until the State proves parental unfitness, the child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship.”
Brokaw v. Mercer County
235 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2000)
​
“Governmental interference in the family relationship must be supported by evidence of parental unfitness.”
Brokaw v. Mercer County
​
Allegations stated that defendants removed a child “without probable cause, in violation of her substantive and procedural due process rights.”
235 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2000)
In re Smith
​
“Parents have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the custody of their children” and state interference requires evidence of unfitness."
969 F.2d 451 (7th Cir. 1992)
RIGHT TO FAMILY INTEGRITY & PARENTAL AUTHORITY
Federal Law — Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA)
“Reasonable efforts shall be made to preserve and reunify families…”
States may remove a child from a parent only when necessary for the child’s safety."
42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15)
Parents have a fundamental liberty interest in raising their children without unnecessary state interference. When the state replaces the judgment of a safe parent with its own assumptions, it disrupts a constitutionally protected family bond.
Every safe parent has the right to keep their child safe.
Every child has the right to be with their safe parent.
CASE LAW
​​
“The interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children…is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.”
Troxel v. Granville
530 U.S. 57 (2000):
Rogers v. County of
San Joaquin
, 487 F.3d 1288 (9th Cir. 2007)
​
“Parents have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care and custody of their children… This interest is of the highest order.”
Smith v. Organization of Foster Families
431 U.S. 816 (1977)
“The importance of the familial relationship is well established in Supreme Court precedent.”
Santosky v. Kramer
455 U.S. 745 (1982)
“The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents…”
RIGHT TO FREEDOM FROM CRUEL AND DEGRADING STATE ACTION
The Constitution prohibits the government from imposing punishments that are cruel, degrading, or cause unnecessary harm. When CPS responds to domestic violence by removing children without justification or subjecting families to traumatic interventions, the State inflicts suffering rather than protection, violating this fundamental safeguard.
Eighth Amendment — United States Constitution
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
The state has no right to be cruel.
CASE LAW
Nicholson v. Scoppetta
​
"It is antithetical to the child’s safety and well-being, and thus to the State’s purpose in intervening, to place the child in foster care when the parent has done nothing wrong and is herself a victim of abuse."
3 N.Y.3d 357, 375 (2004)
Wallis v. Spencer
​
“The State may not inflict trauma on a child by removing them from their parents without adequate justification.”
202 F.3d 1126, 1137 (9th Cir. 2000)
Nicholson v. Scoppetta
​
“Removal of children solely because their mother was abused is punitive and inconsistent with the goal of protecting children from harm.”
3 N.Y.3d 357, 375 (2004)
Doe v. Heck
327 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2003)
“The right to familial relations is a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
RIGHT TO ACCESS JUSTICE AND SAFETY
First Amendment — Petition Clause
“Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Survivors have the right to seek protection and support without fear that reporting abuse will be used against them. Our law guarantees that individuals can report abuse, request safety, file complaints, or seek legal intervention without being punished for doing so. When child welfare agencies remove children or punish non-offending parents because they reached out for help, they violate the parent’s constitutional right to petition the government for safety.
We must not punish parents for seeking protection.
CASE LAW
Franceschi v. Yee
887 F.3d 927, 938 (9th Cir. 2018)
“The State may not retaliate against a person for seeking relief through lawful channels.”
Doe v. Heck
327 F.3d 492, 523 (7th Cir. 2003)
“The government cannot punish those who seek its protection from abuse.”
In re J.J.
​
Seeking medical treatment and emergency protection cannot form the basis for allegations of neglect.
996 N.E.2d 387 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)
Deshaney v. Winnebago County
489 U.S. 189, 197 (1989)
“The State may not place a person in a worse position for having sought its aid.”
Nicholson v. Scoppetta
​
Removing children solely because the mother sought help for domestic violence is unlawful and counter to child safety.
3 N.Y.3d 357 (2004)
Cruz v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
​
“Policies that deter or penalize victims for reporting abuse create unconstitutional barriers to safety and protection.”
2023 WL 7150462 (S.D.N.Y.)
