Children and the Family Flashcards
Meyer v. Nebraska
[SCOTUS]
Liberty includes right of individual to establish a home and bring up children. Corresponding to their right of control, it is natural for the parent to give his children a sufficient education. Meyer’s right to teach, and the parents’ right to engage him to do so, are within the liberty of the 14th Amend. The state’s purpose in creating a homogenous people goes to far and impedes upon individual liberty - it fails rational basis
Pierce v. Society of Sisters
[SCOTUS]
These schools are already providing the students with education, which the state says is its goal for wanting everyone to go to public school. Under Meyer, it’s clear this law unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing/education of the children in their control. The child isn’t the mere creature of the State, those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations
Prince v. Massachusetts
[SCOTUS]
Neither rights of religion or parenthood are beyond limitation. The mere fact a state couldn’t wholly prohibit this form of adult activity doesn’t mean it can’t do so for children – the state’s authority over children is broader than over like actions of adults, particularly true in public activities and in matters of employment. Parents are free to become martyrs themselves but they can’t make martyrs of their children before they have reached the point where they can make that decision for themselves
Wisconsin v. Yoder
[SCOTUS]
State has a compelling interest in education to prepare its citizens, but not enough when it goes up against religion on the facts of this case. The Amish have convincingly demonstrated that an additional year or two of school wouldn’t serve these interests. Education must be assessed in terms of its capacity to prepare the child for life. State has unquestionable duty to protect children from ignorance, but the Amish children aren’t ignorant. This is the parents right to refuse compulsory education for their children – they are subject to prosecution for violating the law and the state never tried this case on the theory the parents were preventing their children from attending school against their expressed desires. Plus, any damage to the child will be temporary.
Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)
Nebraska child abuse/neglect statute. (a) homeless/destitute/abandoned (b) uncontrollable (c) mentally ill and dangerous can be adjudicated neglected
Standard for Negligent Proceedings
Preponderance of the evidence
In the Interest of D.K.
[S. Dakota]
In re Matthew S.
[Cal.] [mental health]
Parents have a fundamental right to their children but must be balanced against state’s duty to protect children within its borders. Absent evidence of potential harm, the state’s interest in protecting the child is outweighed by the legitimate parental interest in retaining child custody. This is a close case with no physical abuse, but the neglect shown escalates neglect to abuse in this instance.
Conduct v. Decision Rules
Conduct rules give notice to potential defendants about what types of conduct are prohibited and must satisfy constitutional due process notice requirements whereas decision rules give notice to decisionmakers, not the defendant, on how they are to exercise their discretion. Child neglect statutes are decision rules
L.L. v. Colorado
Facts: Court grants permanent guardianship to foster parents and places a no contact order on mom w/ kids (functional equivalent of terminating) using a standard less then “clear and convincing” evidence. Held: preponderance of the evid. is sufficient for dependency/neglect even though adverse findings in that hearing can be the basis of a subsequent termination b/c heightening the burden could make it more difficult for the state to protect children and even help families get needed services. Application Even though mom is losing most of her rights, this is still not a termination b/c (i) court will have jurisdiction until kids are 21 meaning she can seek a modification at any time (ii) retains the right to consent/not to adoption, reasonable parenting time (unless otherwise limited) and determination of religious affiliation of the children
Lassiter v. DSS
[SCOTUS]
States don’t have to appoint indigent parents counsel in every termination proceeding - consider nature of case and parent’s ability to go forward w/o counsel
Santosky v. Kramer
Standard of proof instructs the fact-finder on the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for the particular type of adjudication and how the risk of error should be distributed between the litigants. In termination proceedings Mathews (1) – Private Interest Consider the nature and permanency of the threatened loss – here we’re permanently ending a fundamental right. We are pitting state v. parent, not child – the state can’t presume at a fact finding a child and his parents are adversaries; we’re not balancing the child’s interest in a normal family home against the parents’ interest in raising the child. Seems to presume child’s interest and parent’s interest are aligned Mathews (2) – Risk Does a preponderance standard fairly allocate the risk of erroneous fact finding? No – employ imprecise substantive standards that leave determinations open to subjective values of judges, state’s power to assemble a case > a parent’s, proceeding looks like a criminal one. Raising the burden would have practical and symbolic consequences. Society shouldn’t be neutral between erroneous termination and erroneous failure to terminate b/c the consequence is unnecessary destruction of the natural family. Mathews (3) – State Interest (i) as parens patriae - state shares parent’s interest in accurate and just decision at the fact-finding proceeding. (ii) administrative – no real burden in asking judges to apply standard they already know and use in other contexts Held A clear and convincing evidence standard of proof strikes a fair balance between the rights of the parents and the State’s concerns. The determination of a the precise burden equal to or greater than that standard is a matter of state law left to state legislatures/courts
Child Abuse: Common Law
parent of a minor was privileged in using a reasonable amount of force upon a child for purposes of safeguarding or promoting the child’s welfare. So long as the chastisement was moderate and reasonable in light of (i) child’s age/condition, (ii) misconduct being punished, (iii) punishment inflicted, (iv) degree of harm done to the child (v) and other relevant factors, parent wouldn’t incur civil/criminal liability even though identical behavior toward a stranger would be a tort for assault or battery
Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-707
A person commits child abuse if he/she knowingly, intentionally, or negligently causes or permits a minor child to be (a) placed in a situation that endangers life or physical or mental health (b) cruelly confined or punished (c) deprived of necessary food clothing, shelter or care (d) placed in a situation to be sexually exploited or (e) sexually abused
Constitutional Issues in Defining Abuse
Neglect Due process guaranteed by 5th and 14th Amendments require people to know what they’re being charged with before they are charged with it - they have to know in advance what type of conduct is going to get them in trouble
State v. Sinica
[Neb.]
“Cruelly punished” is one capable of definition and applies to clearly proscribed conduct. It’s been given sufficient definition by the common law so it wouldn’t be arbitrary and discriminatory applied on an ad hoc/subjective basis by police, judges, juries…