due process of law Food Headline Medicine Watch parental rights

Murderers, Rapists, and Terrorists have More Rights to Due Process of the Law than Parents Accused of Child Abuse



Commentary by Terri LaPoint
Well being Impression Information

It’s clear that the effort to shield youngsters from abuse has resulted in lots of non-abused youngsters being taken away from harmless mother and father by Child Protecting Providers. Much less than 16% of youngsters are taken from their households for allegations of any variety of abuse (Supply), and solely 17% of allegations towards mother and father are even substantiated (Supply).

In the identify of defending some youngsters, many extra youngsters are traumatized and abused by the very system tasked with defending them. Medical kidnapping and state-sanctioned seizure of youngsters is extra widespread than most individuals have realized.

But mother and father whose youngsters are taken discover that they have much less rights than criminals. The proper to due course of is conspicuously absent from virtually all CPS instances. A legislator as soon as informed me that she doesn’t care about the Constitutional rights of mother and father when it comes to baby abuse allegations.

Is it potential to shield abused youngsters whereas, at the similar time, shield the integrity of households and the Constitutional or civil rights of mother and father?

Richard Wexler, the Government Director of the Nationwide Coalition for Child Safety Reform (NCCPR), believes that it’s. He writes that his group:

…believes the solely method really to shield youngsters is to demand civil liberties with out exception. There may be no true youngster safety when a authorities company is given nearly unchecked energy, virtually no accountability, and operates in secret. (Supply.)

In a doc entitled, “Civil Liberties without Exception: NCCPR’s Due Process Agenda for Children and Families,” Wexler compares baby abuse legal guidelines to potential anti-terrorism legal guidelines.

If the guidelines that at present apply in household courts have been to be utilized in the context of terrorism, it’s readily obvious that there can be an outcry to the violations of civil liberties created by the fictional proposed legal guidelines.

But, it occurs day-after-day to American households coping with CPS.

He invitations readers to contemplate what would occur if then-Lawyer Common Jeff Periods had proposed laws relating to terrorism with the following provisions:

Particular anti-terrorism police might search any house and not using a warrant – and stripsearch any occupant — based mostly solely on an nameless phone tip.

Any occupant of the residence might be detained for 24 hours to two weeks with out a lot as a listening to – and they’ll in all probability be detained far longer as a result of, in the particular anti-terrorism courtroom arrange by this laws, all the judges are afraid to look delicate on “terrorists.”

At that first listening to the detainees might – or might not – get a lawyer simply earlier than the listening to begins, and they virtually by no means get efficient counsel.

At virtually each stage, the commonplace of proof just isn’t “beyond a reasonable doubt” and even “clear and convincing” however merely “preponderance of the evidence,” the lowest commonplace in American jurisprudence, the similar one used to decide which insurance coverage firm pays for a fender-bender.

And in most states, all the hearings and all the data are secret.

The truth is that this isn’t fictional in any respect – besides that it doesn’t apply to alleged terrorists; it applies to households. These injustices are the expertise of a whole lot of hundreds of mother and father all throughout the United States of America. Wexler says:

…this hypothetical anti-terrorism regulation already is the regulation governing baby welfare.

The article lists a quantity of suggestions that NCCPR has made since 2000 which, if utilized, would go far to make sure that the system takes solely youngsters who’re really in want of state intervention.

If Constitutional rules and civil liberties have been truly adopted by all state actors, then youngsters wouldn’t be terrorized by our personal authorities taking them away from loving houses.

Transparency and Openness

A lot of what occurs with Child Protecting Providers is completed in secret. Courts are sometimes closed, and mother and father are threatened with unconstitutional gag orders if they struggle to speak about the seizure of their youngsters.

Whereas businesses cite “confidentiality” considerations to the public, dangerous actors are left free to trample civil liberties like due course of, perjury is unchecked, and youngsters are left to be abused in foster care or group houses, and even to be trafficked to pedophiles or pornography rings. Felony actions are shrouded in a veil of secrecy.

NCCPR requires the most elementary of protections for the integrity of the course of: transparency.

Social staff and Child Abuse Pediatricians presently maintain virtually limitless energy to tear a household aside with no extra than their phrase. Richard Wexler says that:

The facility have to be checked by accountability. Accountability is just not attainable in secret.

Neither is accountability potential just by hiring individuals with extra experience and assuming they may do the proper factor. It’s not supposed to work that method in a democracy. That’s the reason it’s so pressing that each one courtroom hearings and virtually all data in youngster welfare instances be presumed open.


Shelby County Decide Corey Moore tried to silence Journalist Terri LaPoint for reporting the medical kidnapping of a new child from household – a household that has since been exonerated. See story.

Attorneys for the mother and father or the GAL for the baby may be permitted to request that a case not be open to the public, however Wexler states:

CPS shouldn’t even be allowed to ask for it. CPS has little interest in secrecy different than as a approach to cowl up its failings.

He factors out that:

Probably the most traumatic instances are doubtless to contain not solely youngster safety proceedings however felony instances as nicely. These hearings already are public.

But we have by no means seen nor heard a single account of a toddler saying that he or she was traumatized by the undeniable fact that such a trial was public. Nor do we all know of any grownup coming ahead years after the reality to complain of such trauma.

There are some states that have opened up their CPS courtroom instances to the public, and the outcomes have been constructive. New York Decide Jonathan Lippman discovered that:

“It has been 100 percent positive with no negatives … Our worst critics will say it was the best thing we ever did. Their fears were unfounded … I wish other states would do it.”

NCCPR recommends that data, in addition to the courts, be open.

The general public tends to solely hear of the instances the place a toddler was left in a state of affairs that CPS ought to have taken them out of. These are the horror tales that drive ever extra intrusive laws and assist non-profits to safe funding.

However they don’t seem to be the overwhelming majority of the instances. More typically than not, youngsters are faraway from good houses, not left in dangerous ones. Due to the insurance policies of closed data, the media and the public get the fallacious concept, and demand motion to cease the youngster abuse disaster.


The Stanley youngsters have been taken from harmless mother and father for false allegations, prompting Arkansas state lawmakers to examine how to cease this type of abuse by the state. See story.

If different businesses, legislators, and the media had open entry to the data, a extra correct image could possibly be painted. On this context, CPS can be free to remark as nicely, as an alternative of saying, “There is more to the story, but we can’t tell you, due to confidentiality laws.”

Our expertise at Well being Impression Information has been that oldsters WANT individuals to see what is occurring. Parents have a tendency to be forthcoming about their warts and failures, as a result of they aren’t making an attempt to fake that they’re good mother and father. They only need individuals to see that they’re loving mother and father, albeit imperfect, who didn’t harm their youngsters.

Good Authorized Illustration

Wexler recommends that:

High quality authorized illustration have to be obtainable to all mother and father who should face CPS.

In the instances the place the mother and father can’t afford an lawyer:

The institutional supplier of counsel ought to have legal professionals out there 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week, in order that they will start to work on a case from the second a toddler is faraway from the house as an alternative of solely at or after the first listening to – and even later – as often is the case now.

In any given CPS case, the state has extra money and extra authorized assets at their disposal than the mother and father, presenting a lop-sided pretense at justice. How can mother and father battle again towards such an enormous entity, particularly in the event that they have been already struggling to make ends meet BEFORE CPS?

Connie Reguli 2017

Connie Reguli of Tennessee is a warrior lawyer who fights for what is true for households. Photograph from Household Ahead Challenge Fb web page.

A decide in Washington state proposed a novel concept to assist “level the playing field,” and it has labored properly:

In Pierce County, Washington, the decide in cost of the county’s juvenile courts was dismayed at the escalating price of terminations of parental rights – figuring out that he was dooming some of the youngsters to a depressing existence in foster care.

So he persuaded the legislature to present sufficient cash for protection attorneys to have assets equal to these of the Lawyer Basic’s workplace, which represents the state youngster welfare company in juvenile courtroom. The end result: profitable reunification of households elevated by extra than 50 %.

Alongside this line, I would really like to suggest a legislative mandate that, every time an allegation by a Child Abuse Pediatrician is heard by a courtroom, the courtroom must be required to think about the testimony of any medical specialists who disagree with the interpretation of the Child Abuse Pediatrician or who can attest to a medical situation that explains the baby’s signs.

The state which pays for testimony towards the mother and father ought to be required to present a funding grant to the mother and father for medical specialists who can present exonerating testimony, in the curiosity of discovering the fact as to whether or not or not the youngster was really abused or just has a medical situation.

GALS Ought to Truly Look Out for the Child, Not the State

When teenager Isaiah Rider was medically kidnapped, he tried repeatedly to hearth his Guardian advert Litem (GAL). He stated that she didn’t characterize both what he needed or what was greatest for him. (See story.)


Isaiah Rider together with his mother Michelle. Isaiah stated his GAL didn’t symbolize him, however as an alternative actively fought towards him. Photograph offered by household.

We have heard this story repeated by youngsters throughout the nation who’re sufficiently old that their voice ought to be heard. NCCPR has additionally apparently discovered this to be the case. They advocate:

Law guardians ought to act as legal professionals. Guardians advert litem (GALs) ought to advocate for what the youngsters they characterize need, even when the GAL doesn’t assume it’s in the baby’s greatest pursuits.

…in most states, the job of the guardian is to struggle for what the guardian thinks is greatest for the baby – even when the baby disagrees. The guardian might make the courtroom conscious of what the baby needs however, if the guardian thinks that’s dangerous for the youngster, the guardian fights towards the youngster’s needs.

Reporting Abuse

Too many mother and father have discovered the exhausting means that a vindictive neighbor, a scorned ex, or a hostile relative can destroy their household by choosing up the telephone and making up lies. Whereas this will waste assets that could possibly be wanted for really abused youngsters, it additionally serves to open up the door to CPS social staff to go on a “fishing expedition” to discover the slightest excuse to take a toddler and put them into the system.

NCCPR recommends:

Earlier than a name is accepted by a toddler abuse “hotline” and referred for investigation, the caller have to be in a position to show that s/he does, certainly, have “reasonable cause to suspect” maltreatment.

The caller have to be in a position to supply one thing extra than a guess that a youngster actually is being abused or uncared for. To assist hotline operators accomplish this aim:

  • A rational technique have to be established for screening hotline calls.
  • Nameless calls shouldn’t be accepted.

Of all the sources of baby abuse studies, nameless reviews persistently are the least dependable. They’re virtually all the time fallacious.

The “Central Registry”

Parents can find yourself on a “central registry” of baby abusers even when the allegations are unsubstantiated. Many see the registry of a gross violation of civil rights, and for good cause. Wexler proposes suggestions to handle these considerations:

Nobody ought to be listed in a central register of alleged baby abusers, and no allegation must be substantiated, till, at a minimal, the household has had an administrative listening to carried out by a listening to officer outdoors of the youngster welfare company. The usual of proof ought to be “clear and convincing.”

All states have large databases itemizing everybody caseworkers suspect of being a toddler abuser. Most databases additionally embrace the names of individuals even when the accusation was decided to be “unfounded.”

This poses monumental dangers to youngsters. Anybody might be declared a toddler abuser based mostly on no extra than a caseworker’s guess. All she has to do is verify a field on the type. Then the accused should struggle her or his means out.

In some instances, there isn’t any means to struggle your method out in any respect. Some states permit for no attraction of this determination. In different states, the attraction course of is lengthy and cumbersome.

But an inventory in a central register can have profound penalties….

As all the time, CPS businesses will declare that any curb on their energy to successfully blacklist anybody they select will compromise their capability to shield youngsters. The truth is, depriving individuals of employment based mostly on rumor and innuendo is enormously dangerous to youngsters.

  • Clearly, if a father or mother can’t get work, that may have an effect on his or her youngsters.
  • If info based mostly on little extra than a caseworker’s guess is allowed to pile up in secret information, eventually some CPS employee is probably going to declare that there’s a “pattern” and use that as the foundation to take away the youngsters.

Youngsters want safety from the senseless piling up of rumor and innuendo in information about their households. That is notably true when unfounded reviews are stored.

Wexler recommends that:

When a report is “unfounded” all data ought to be expunged inside 30 days. The rationale unfounded studies must be expunged is the similar cause CPS businesses need to maintain them.

As soon as once more, they are saying they’re wanted to detect “patterns” or, as they typically like to put it “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” However a sample of rumor and innuendo is so deceptive that it’s worse than no sample in any respect. In youngster welfare, the place there’s smoke, there typically is simply smoke – and nobody can see clearly via smoke.


Youngsters want relationship with their mother and father. The father or mother/youngster relationship, regardless of how fantastic or dysfunctional, is essential to a toddler’s improvement. Typically, there isn’t any justifiable cause for the state to withhold these visits.  NCCPR’s suggestion is:

From the second a toddler is eliminated till the first listening to at which all sides are represented, the youngster welfare company shall be chargeable for arranging day by day visits, until it could present, by clear and convincing proof, that this may trigger extreme emotional hurt to the baby.


Youngsters are wired to want their mother and father. Deprivation of the parental bond is, in itself, very traumatic to youngsters. See Marty Peele’s story.

Report Every part

Advocates universally inform mother and father dealing with CPS to “record everything.” Wexler takes it a step additional:

All interviews carried out by CPS personnel in the course of baby maltreatment investigations – not simply interviews with youngsters – ought to be, at a minimal, audiotaped, and ideally videotaped.

Interviewees have to be knowledgeable that their statements are being recorded. Info from any interview that isn’t taped ought to be inadmissible in all courtroom proceedings.

It’s the expertise of many, if not most, mother and father coping with social staff or Child Abuse Pediatricians that the staff say one factor to them and one other in courtroom, or they really fabricate info that’s introduced as reality to the courts.

A case might be made that oldsters might do the similar factor. Recordings assist to maintain everybody extra trustworthy.

A primary tenet of communications concept is that folks have a tendency to hear what they need to hear or what they anticipate to hear. The whole lot we hear is filtered via our life experiences, our beliefs, and our prejudices.

There isn’t any excuse not to require that each interview executed by a CPS employee in the area be, at a minimal, audiotaped and each interview finished at a CPS workplace or comparable facility be videotaped.

As essential as requiring taping itself is a requirement that interviews that aren’t taped be handled, in impact, as if they don’t exist.

In legal instances, proof obtained improperly can’t be admitted – regardless of how compelling that proof could also be. The requirement is an try to make certain that police are scrupulous about the rights of residents once they collect proof.

If taping is “required,” however notes from interviews that weren’t taped nonetheless can be utilized in courtroom, it’s an invite for apps to “fail,” staff to “forget” and batteries to “die” regularly.

Increase the Bar

The usual by which a dad or mum might be “substantiated” as abusive or neglectful is low, and as we have seen repeatedly in our investigations, mother and father could also be primarily declared responsible with none actual proof required. Wexler takes difficulty with this and proposes that the bar be raised:

The usual of proof in all courtroom proceedings must be raised from the present normal in most states, “preponderance of the evidence,” to “clear and convincing.” The usual additionally ought to apply when a employee decides to “substantiate” alleged maltreatment.

There are few punishments one can inflict on a toddler which might be extra extreme than needlessly tearing away her or his household. And but, when it’s time for courts to determine to place a toddler in foster care, they don’t apply the normal used to convict somebody accused of murdering a toddler, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and even the center commonplace, “clear and convincing” proof.

As an alternative, courts in most states apply the lowest commonplace of proof, “preponderance of the evidence.” As we famous at the begin of this report, that is the similar commonplace used to determine which insurance coverage firm pays for a fender-bender.


Devani’s story is a horrific instance of a toddler taken from dad or mum’s for flimsy causes with out proof, and positioned into nightmare conditions far worse than something she ever knew at residence. See story.

In consequence, many extra youngsters endure abuse at the arms of the state:

Opponents say, in impact, that if caseworkers ever truly had to present actual proof that a mother or father did one thing incorrect earlier than they took away the youngsters, then youngsters could be left in unsafe houses.

But when the normal is just not raised, much more youngsters might be topic to the unconscionable trauma of useless foster care – and some of them can be abused in foster care itself.

Defending Parental Rights Protects Youngsters

The underside line of all of these suggestions is that we should shield the Constitutional civil liberties of mother and father. The suggestions fall into a number of primary classes which already apply to alleged criminals accused of even the most heinous of crimes:

  • open and clear courts,
  • high quality illustration, and
  • precise proof required earlier than deciding guilt and tearing aside the household.

It’s incomprehensible that oldsters will not be already afforded these similar rights, when what’s at stake is extra essential and helpful than anything – our youngsters.

In doing so, we’ll then make sure that youngsters are certainly protected, who might have extra to worry from the state than they ever did from their mother and father.

Touch upon this text at MedicalKidnap.com.

Medical Kidnapping: A Menace to Each Household in America T-Shirt


100% Pre-shrunk Cotton!
Order right here!

Medical Kidnapping is REAL!

See: Medical Kidnapping: A Menace to Each Household in America Immediately

Assist unfold the consciousness of Medical Kidnapping by sporting the Medical Kidnapping t-shirt!

Help the trigger of MedicalKidnap.com, which is a component of the Well being Influence Information community.

Order right here!

If you understand people who find themselves skeptical and can’t consider that medical kidnapping occurs in the U.S. as we speak, that is the ebook for them! Backed with strong references and actual life examples, they will be unable to deny the plain proof earlier than them, and will turn into higher educated on this matter that’s destroying the American household.

Medical Kidnapping final

1 E-book – 228 pages
Retail: $24.99
FREE Delivery Obtainable!
Now: $14.99
Order right here!


2 Books
Retail: $49.98 (for two books)
FREE Delivery Out there!
Now: $19.99 (for two books)
Order right here!

Additionally obtainable as eBook:


eBook – Obtain Instantly!

Revealed on November 26, 2018

s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)(window, doc,’script’,
fbq(‘init’, ‘928755773879843’);