Child Custody and Parenting

Question 1

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Answer 1

Laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment

Question 2

Maryland v. Craig (1990)

Answer 2

Closed-circuit testimony does NOT violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment

Question 3

Painter v. Bannister (1966) *

Answer 3

The standard for determining child custody IS based on the best interests of the child (e.g., grandparents kept custody vs. Boho dad [like a painter or artist])

More broadly, “best interests” tests seems to demand no less than judicial determination of the desirable traits of a citizen.

Helped to establish the concept of “psychological parent”

Question 4

Palmore v. Sidoti (1984)

Answer 4

You CANNOT remove a child from their mother based on prejudice the child may face, if the mother is capable of caring for the child

Question 5

Pennsylvania v. Richie (1987)

Answer 5

Criminal defendants ARE entitled to access a youth service organization’s file of confidential information in the grounds of Confrontation and Compulsory Process clauses

Question 6

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)

Answer 6

Control of a child’s education lies with the parents, without the state’s interference

Question 7

Santosky v. Kramer (1982)*

Answer 7

1) Parents have a fundamental liberty interest (14th) in the care of their children that necessitates due process. Parents don’t lose this simply bc they are not model parents or lost temporary custody.
2) Before a state can completely and irrevocably sever parental rights, due process requires the state to support its allegations by at least “clear and convincing evidence” (but this is not straightforward—states differ in how they approach this guidance, with some splitting termination hearings into two phases with different standards of proof).

Question 8

Troxel v. Granville (2000)

Answer 8

(1) Due process clause of 14th Amendment guaranteed that the state could not interfere in a fit parent’s decision to care for their children.
(2) Allowed the parent to decide the level of visitation.
(3) Deference to the rights of parents to the care, custody, and control of their children.
(4) Did not make the parents’ views on 3rd party visitation dispositive. However did reorient policy-making and discarded previous unanimity.

Question 9

Baltimore Social Services v. Bouknight (1990)

Answer 9

A mother who is the custodian of her child cannot invoke privilege against self-incrimination to resist a subsequent court order to produce the child.

Question 10

Chapsky v. Wood (1881)

Answer 10

BIOC

Question 11

DeShaney v. Winnebago County DSS (1989)

Answer 11

The Due Process Clause does not impose a special duty on the State (social services) to provide services to the public for protection against private actors (e.g., dad beating child and causing TBI) if the State did not create those harms. “The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State’s power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means.”

Question 12

Idaho v. Wright (1990)

Answer 12

Admission of hearsay testimony made on behalf on a child’s out of court statement to an examining pediatrician DOES violated the Confrontation Clause because of the inability to prove it was reliable. The pediatrician threw away the documentation, and improperly interviewed the child victim. The child was not present in the court, so the testimony was excluded.

Question 13

Lassiter v. DSS (1981)

Answer 13

1) The Due process Clause does not automatically require state appointment of an attorney for parental rights termination proceedings.
2) Rather, the lower courts should decide whether appointing an attorney in these cases is warranted based on a) private/defendant interests, b) govt interests, and c) risk that the procedures would lead to erroneous decisions.

Question 14

Prince v. MA (1944)

Answer 14

upreme Court of the United States held that the government has broad authority to regulate the actions and treatment of children. Parental authority is not absolute and can be permissibly restricted if doing so is in the interests of a child’s welfare

Question 15

Tuter v. Tuter (1938)

Answer 15

Granting custody to the mother is preferred and placements in which siblings are separated are discouraged

Question 16

White v. Illinois (1992)

Answer 16

The Court held that the Confrontation Clause does not require that a declarant be produced at trial or found unavailable before his out-of-court statements may be admitted into evidence. Instead, when the statements fall within a “firmly-rooted” exception to the hearsay rule, they satisfy the Confrontation Clause. Statements made in certain contexts carry special guarantees of reliability and trustworthiness, such as when the prospect of misdiagnosis or mistreatment deters a declarant from making false statements while obtaining medical treatment. Consequently, the Court held that cross-examination does not aid the truth-finding process with respect to these types of statements as much as it might for out-of-court statements that do not come under an exception to the hearsay rule.