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…
State v. Meinert
[Kan.]
Phrase “unjustifiable physical pain” doesn’t convey a sufficiently definite warning as to the conduct proscribed, with ascertainable standards of guilt, that reasonably intelligent men could follow. This is arbitrary - it allows judges/police/social workers to decide
Shane T.
[N. York]
Child abuse is defined as non-accidental physical injury causing substantial pain. Pain is subjective concept, but knowledge of the circumstances and the description of the sensation provide a basis for measuring within one’s own experience, the degree of pain felt by another. The actual or potential impact on the child, as opposed to the per se seriousness of the injury, that forms the predicate for abuse. It would be unjustifiable to narrowly interpret this statute so that physical injury has to be inflicted by physical force.
State v. Wikerson
[N. Car.]
Battered child syndrome. The opinions expressed ( bruises looked like bcs, typically inflicted by a parent) fall well within the bounds of permissible medical expert testimony. Nowhere did the dr. express/purport to express an opinion as to defendant’s guilt/innocence.
People v. Walkey
[Cal. Ct .App.]
Doctor, while testifying about bcs talked about various factors that make up the profile of a child abuser. Held Character evidence in criminal cases can’t be used to prove a defendant acted in conformity with such character to commit the crime unless defendant puts character in question. Although the doc never expressly concluded defendant fit the pattern, his testimony clearly implicated the defendant’s character
People v. Phillips
[Cal. Ct. App.]
Munchausen syndrome by proxy. Allowing evidence of why mom did what she did when you already have intent.
Character Evidence in Child Abuse
When you’re talking about a batterers behavior you’re probably running into character evidence. Prejudicial character evidence b/c penalizes defendant for past misdeeds; means jury may overvalue character evidence; and we’re not trying him for everything bad - just here; and it’s unfair to require an accused to be prepared not only to defend against immediate charges, but also to disprove or explain his personality/prior actions
Child Abuse Reporting Statutes
(1) specify classes of people who must report
(2) Require all people to report
Landeros v. Flood
[Cal.]
A physician is required to possess and exercise the reasonable degree of knowledge and skill which is ordinarily possessed and exercised by other members of his profession in similar circumstances. Plaintiff is entitled to the opportunity to prove what the medical community believes is proper protocol for BCS. She is also entitled to prove that defendant should reasonably have foreseen her caretakers were likely to resume their physical abuse if returned to them - and his doing so was a proximate cause of her resulting injuries. But the reporting statute requires the defendant know that the child is being abused and fail to report - the duty is knowing AND failing, so no tort liability w/o proving both.
Matter of Cabrera
[Penn.]
Parents’ right to control every aspect of their child’s life isn’t absolute - where harm to the health of the child is demonstrated, legitimate interests may override the parents’ qualified right to control the upbringing of their children - if treatment is relatively safe and life sustaining. Contrasts w/ Green where parents don’t have to consent for dangerous treatment for non-lifethreatening condition
New York Case
Mother’s right to her religious beliefs is inviolate but her right to practice them is subject to limitations. Appellant argues that State intervention is permitted only where the life of the child is in danger by a failure to act. This is too restricted - as things now exist, Kevin can never lead a normal life or be of much benefit to himself or society
In the Interest of DLE
[Colo.]
Colorado statute provides no child who in good faith is under treatment solely by spiritual means for that reason alone shall be considered neglected.
In re E.G.
[Illinois]
Before a minor can make her own health decisions, the judge must decide if she is mature. If the evidence is clear and convincing that minor is mature enough to appreciate consequences of her actions and to exercise adult judgment, the mature minor doctrine affords her the common law right to consent to or refuse medical treatment. This right isn’t absolute and must be balanced against (i) preservation of life (ii) protection the interests of 3rd parties (if parents opposes minor’s refusal to consent, this opposition would weigh heavily against minor’s right to refuse) (iii) prevention of suicide and (iv) maintaining ethical integrity of the medical profession.
Parham v. J.R.
[SCOTUS]
Involuntary mental hospital confinement: Rule: (i) some kind of inquiry should be made by a neutral fact finder (ii) that the decisionmaker have the authority to refuse to admit any child who doesn’t satisfy the medical standards for admission and (iii) that the child’s continuing need for commitment be reviewed periodically by a similarly independent procedure.
