Child custody Flashcards
Baltimore City Department Social Services v Bouknight (1990)
Child in foster care, later returned with conditions
social services said mom would not cooperate (would not provide him or share where he was) and violated protective order and she could not provide adequate care based history of drug use and psych eval and asked court to help
She did not appear, got contempt, sentenced to be imprisoned until she either produced child or said where he was; she said this violated her 5th amendment right (court disagreed)
Court can request production & return of child and she could not ignore court order
Not fifth amendment right because not incriminating statements; possible that production order can compel testimonial assertions does not justice always invoking the privilege to resist production (she had custodial duties related and is required by court for proceeding)
Chapsky v. Wood (1881)
Father left wife and later filed for custody from child’s aunt after mother died
Finding: custody cases relate directly to welfare or child, no legal precedents at the time; said father should normally be entitled to custody because of obligation as caregiver but that child is not his property and not an absolute right; court said should consider right of parent, person in charge of client’s care, and right of child; “welfare and interest” of child is most important (financial, health, parenting practices); in this case said aunt did well over years and father seemed cold so aunt kept custody
DeShaney v Winnebago County Department Social Services (1989)
Custody given to father, social services investigated report of child abuse after child was hospitalized
Tried to keep boy in hospital but case dismissed and went back with father
SS continued to visit and had additional suspicions of child abuse, continued over years
Son later beat and in coma with brain damage
Mother filed lawsuit against SS, stating that they failed to intervene and protect from violence that they knew or should have known; 14th amendment violation right to liberty for son; court dismissed cased
Finding: split; 14th does not give special duty to state to provide services to public against violence from private individuals; no obligation to ensure interests of life and liberty unless state directly responsible for the harm; child was not in SS custody at the time of the abuse so they were not required to protect him; several psychologists in this case found not liable (ethical problems though?)
Idaho v Wright (1990)
Exes agreed to share custody of daughter, and younger half-sister remain with mother
Daughter later made claims of being sexually assaulted by mother’s husband while mother held her down, said same thing happened to half-sister
Dr found evidence of sexual assault, charges
Court did voir dire of half sister (3yo) and found she was not able to testify but court allowed dr to testify about statements she had made during examination
Convicted, appealed stating court should not have admitted dr’s hearsay testimony; appeal agreed as violation of 6th (Right to confront accuser) but said children are highly susceptible and then reversed saying jury would still have convicted anyway
Finding: state bears burden of showing testimony of witness who is unavailable is sufficient reliable to withstand scrutiny under confrontation clause; testimony must be so reliable that cross examination would not alter its credibility, it has to be inherently reliable even without corroborating evidence; state could not prove that in this case so it is unreliable and inadmissible
Lassiter v Department Social Services (1981)
1yo child determined was being neglected, put in foster care; mother convicted of murder and social services petitioned to terminate parental rights because she had not contact with her son and willfully left him in foster care
Mother argued she should be able to have counsel, court said she had enough time to do so and was not indigent and then later said she failed to maintain concern or responsibility for son and terminated parental rights
Appeal- state said she did not have constitutional right to counsel
Finding: Not constitutionally required to provide counsel; right to counsel only generally applied in case where physical liberty could be lost
Relied on Mathews v Eldrige (1976), mother’s interest were important, court shared common interest in coming to correct decision, court also had monetary interesting, and error in the decision would be damaging
But also said not required because proceeding was not punitive and did not result in loss of liberty
Loving v Virginia (1967)
Finding: violation of 14th to not allow interracial marriage
Freedom to marry was “one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
To deny this freedom “on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes would be to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.”
Maryland v Craig (1990)
Operation are preschool/kindergarten facility accused of sexually abused 6yo; trial allowed alleged victim to testify via one way video over objection; convicted
Appealed, stating violating 6th amendment right
Finding: Did not violate 6th amendment, not absolute right for face to face meetings with witnesses, “in certain narrow circumstances, ‘competing interests, if closely examined, may warrant dispensing with confrontation at trial”, in this case protecting physical and psychological wellbeing of children can outweigh defendant rights
Painter v Bannister (1966)
Father filed custody petition against maternal grandparents
Mother and sister died in accident and left custody for father but he asked grandparents to take care of him
He remarried and asked them to return son later, and they refused
Father unstable life and grandparents more stable
Psychiatrist said that grandparents provided stable and dependable environment and possibility to go to college and father’s home would be more free but unstable and less practical
Psychologist said that Mark had acted out, been aggressive, tall tales prior to being with grandparents and now he saw grandfather as father figure and was respectful and well grounded
Discounted psychologist testimony and gave custody to father with presumption that parent is best suited to have custody, grandparents appealed and court reversed and remanded
Finding: Father should not be given custody; , the primary consideration is the best interest of the child, and if the return of custody to the father is likely to have a seriously disrupting and disturbing effect upon the child’s development, this fact must prevail; We do not believe it is for Mark’s best interest to take him out of this stable atmosphere in the face of warnings of dire consequences from an eminent child psychologist and send him to an uncertain future in his father’s home. Regardless of our appreciation of the father’s love for his child and his desire to have him with him, we do not believe we have the moral right to gamble with this child’s future.
Palmore v Sidoti (1984)
Parents divorced, mother got custody; both parents white
Father filed petition to modify when mother lived with and married black man and alleged she not properly cared for child
The court counselor made an earlier report in another case involving the social consequences of an interracial marriage. The court found likewise in the case the wife had chosen for herself and for her child a lifestyle unacceptable to her father and to society. The court found the best interests of the child would be served by awarding custody to the father, because of the environmental pressures that would be placed on the child that are not of the child’s own choice.
Finding: yes, this is wrong; racial prejudice cannot justify removing infant child from custody of mother who was otherwise appropriate to parent; court base this decision solely on race (can’t do that!); violates 14th amendment; he law cannot give private biases effect, either directly or indirectly
Pennsylvania v Richie (1987)Father convicted of rape, involuntary sexual intercourse, incest, and corruption of minor (his daughter)
Tried to get info from Social Services investigation but not granted access because confidential; appealed and court reversed and allowed access
Finding: yes he can have access to this info as long as it is material to the case; trial court can review first to make sure info could change outcome of trial for his appeal
Under due process principles, the government has an obligation to turn over evidence in its possession that is both favorable to the accused and material to guilt or punishment. Evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different. However, the defense counsel was NOT entitled to examine the confidential information. A defendant’s right to discover exculpatory evidence does not include the unsupervised authority to search the State’s files and make the determination as to the materiality of the information. To allow full disclosure to defense counsel in this type of case would sacrifice unnecessarily the State’s compelling interest in protecting its child abuse information. Failure to disclose the file did not violate the confrontation clause.*
Pierce v Society of Sisters (1925)
Oregon had law requiring children to attend public school in districts where they lived
Private schools challenged this under 14th amendment (deprived them of property without due process)
Finding: State cannot require children attend public school, state has rights to regulate education even nonpublic schools; parents can make educational choices for their children, private schools’ “protection against arbitrary, unreasonable, and unlawful interference with their patrons and the consequent destruction of their business and property.”
Prince v Massachusetts (1944)
Jehovah’s witness convicted of violating child labor law; guardian of 9yo who she brought to preach on streets and distribute literature; law said no boy under 12 or girl under 18 can sell literature or other goods
Complaints: refused to give child age or identity to police; gave girl magazine knowing she would sell unlawfully, permitted her to work contrary to law as her custodian
She said these laws violated 14th/right to exercise her religion as children were ministers in this religion
Finding: upheld law restricting children to sell religious literature (From Massachusetts), government has broad authority to regulate actions and treatment of children; parental authority is not absolute and can be restricted if in child’s welfare
One issue that the Court considered was whether a parent’s presence makes it permissible for the child to engage in actions that would otherwise be prohibited but decided state can legislate this activity
Santosky v Kramer (1982)*
Biological parents had neglect proceeding initiated against them, both children removed from home
Had third child, who was sent to foster system at 3d old
Parent rights termination petitioned; challenged the preponderance standard but court found that while they maintained contact with their children but visits were superficial; court said agency helped strengthen relationship but said parents incapable of planning for child’s future; court terminated custody
Finding: Due process requires more than preponderance in termination of parental rights hearing; NY allowed permanent neglect at this level, lower than ost stated
The nature of the process due turns on the balancing of three distinct factors: 1) the private interests affected by the proceeding; 2) the risk of error created by the State’s chosen procedure; 3) the countervailing governmental interest supporting use of the challenged procedure. Evaluation of these factors compels the conclusion that use of a fair preponderance of the evidence standard in these cases is inconsistent with due process.
When the State initiates a parental rights termination proceeding, it seeks to end a fundamental liberty interest.
At the fact-finding permanent neglect proceedings, numerous factors combine to magnify the risk of erroneous factfinding. They employ imprecise substantive standards that leave determinations largely up to the subjective values of the judge. The court possesses unusual discretion, and the fact that the parents are often poor, uneducated, or minorities, leave them vulnerable to judgments based on cultural or class bias. The State’s ability to assemble a case dwarfs the parents’ ability to mount a defense, and the primary witnesses are often the agency’s own professional caseworkers. Finally, there is no double jeopardy defense available to parents to forestall future termination efforts. These factors create a significant prospect of erroneous termination. Raising the standard of proof would have both practical and symbolic consequences. It would impress the factfinder with the importance of the decision, and hopefully reduce inappropriate terminations.
Two state interests are at stake: A parens patriae interest in promoting the welfare of the child and a fiscal and administrative interest in reducing the cost and burden of such proceedings. A stricter standard of proof is consistent with both interests.
Troxel v Granville (2000)
Couple never married, had 2 daughters; separated and father lived with his parents and brought daughters there for visits, father committed suicide and mother reduced visitation for grandparents
Grandparents sued for right to visit as statute allows for “any person” and “at any time” for visitation rights; mother did not oppose visitation but the amount; court granted more than mother wanted; appealed and reversed stating non-parents cannot sue under this statute and said this was unconstitutional interference with parent’s right to rear children
Finding: Washington violated rights of parents under due process/14th; presumption is that fit parents act in children’s best interest but court ignored the mother’s thoughts on best interests in this case and she should not have buren of disproving visitation would be best interest
Tuter v Tuter (1938)
Granting custody to mother is preferred, placements that separate siblings discouraged
