A License to Seize Our Children!!!

> > By Berit Kjos <www.crossroad.to> 1994
> > http://crossroad.to/articles2/License-DSS.htm
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Can social workers remove children from parents without proof of abuse,
> > without a court order, without explanation, and without liability?
> >
> > Yes, they can.  On April 25, the U.S.  Supreme Court let stand a U.S.
> > Courts of Appeals ruling that social workers are entitled to "absolute
> > immunity from liability" which "ensures that they [social workers] are
> > not deterred from vigorously performing their jobs as they might if they
> > feared personal liability."[i] The high court rejected an appeal from
> > Ian Hoffman, a father who was arrested and stripped of his right to see
> > his daughter resulting from false allegations of child abuse.  The two
> > social workers who brought the allegations neither questioned the child
> > nor allowed the father a chance to respond.
> >
> > That Hoffman was later cleared by a jury and awarded permanent custody
> > of his child doesn't change the effects of the high court's 7-to-2 vote.
> >
> > Given vast discretionary power to punish families believed to violate
> > their standards, today's social workers may confiscate children and
> > divide families without accountability to the public that they
> > supposedly serve.
> > Apparently parents have little or no recourse.
> >
> > Which parents are at risk?
> >
> > If you are "indoctrinating your children with Christian beliefs" and
> > teaching them Biblical standards, beware!  Christian beliefs, values,
> > and disciplines are considered too narrow and exclusive for the
> > envisioned 21st Century global society.  In her article, "Children are
> > not Chattel," Kathy Collins, Legal Counsel to the Iowa Department of
> > Education, summarized the growing hostility toward Christians: "The
> > Christian fundamentalists who want the freedom to indoctrinate their
> > children with religious education do not understand [that] the law that
> > prevents them from legally teaching their kids prevents someone else
> > from abusing theirs."[ii] In simpler words, training your child
> > according to Biblical truth is equated with child abuse.
> >
> > If "Parents As Teachers" - a parent training service mandated by
> > Clinton's Goals 2000 - has already been implemented in your school
> > district, beware!
> > You will be taught how to teach your pre-schoolers according to
> > politically correct guidelines.  Your Christian beliefs and values could
> > put your child in the school's "at risk" category, since they prevent
> > the child from starting school with an open mind, ready to embrace
> > today's multicultural blend of the world's earth-centered religions.
> > Any resistance to this program will be noted in the computerized
> > tracking system and could lead to the confiscation of your child.
> >
> > If your public schools are already joined to on-site health clinics,
> > watch out!  Parental rights to counsel and instruct their own children
> > when they face moral, mental and physical challenges will be superseded
> > by politically correct guidance from a team of educators, psychologists,
> > and social workers.  This team will be trained to equip students with
> > the beliefs and values fit for the envisioned new world order where
> > individuals will serve the common good.
> >
> > If you use reasonable spanking as a means of loving discipline, watch
> > out!
> > A member of the special education team at a Reno, Nevada school asked a
> > delightful eight-year old student,[iii] "Do your parents ever spank
> > you?"
> > "Yes," answered the boy.  After a futile check for bruises on his body,
> > a school official called the parents and informed them that if they ever
> > spanked their son again, he would be removed from their home.
> >
> > If you are trying to train willful children to live safe, moral lives in
> > a culture wracked by violence and immorality, beware!  Hoping to find
> > safety in America, Jio Saephan brought his family from war-torn Laos to
> > San Francisco.  Last January, seven-year-old Vourn "played
> > recklessly"[iv] with a kitchen knife, frightening his grandmother.  She
> > told his father, who - according to Laotian traditions - disciplined him
> > with a slap on his hand with the dull part of the knife, leaving a small
> > bruise.  The next day, Vourn's teacher noticed the bruise which was next
> > to a more noticeable scratch from playing with a steel gate.  She asked
> > what happened, and reported the boy's responses.  Later, social workers
> > entered Saephan's apartment and, without any explanation, took Vourn and
> > his four healthy siblings and put them in foster homes.
> >
> > Vourn's five-week-old brother, who always slept with his mother, died
> > within weeks.  The social workers said he died from "sudden infant death
> > syndrome," but the mother isn't convinced.  When she visited her baby,
> > his clothes stank of cigarette smoke.  Seeking help from her social
> > worker was futile.  "She yell at me," said the mother.  "I say, I worry
> > about my baby.
> > His clothes smell so bad."[v] After her baby died, the mother wasn't
> > allowed to come near him for four days.  When she finally did see the
> > tiny body, she noticed a bruise on his forehead.  She believes he was
> > dropped.[vi] The state has forbidden the heart-broken father to visit
> > his children without the presence of social workers.  To regain his
> > parental rights, he must attend contemporary parenting classes.
> > Sometimes pain and confusion overwhelms him.  "In our culture, when a
> > kid doesn't listen, you discipline him," he said.  "In American culture,
> > you don't lay a hand on the kid.
> > When they grow up, they don't listen to parents.  They want to do
> > whatever they want to do.  I don't want my kid to grow up like
> > that."[vii] The Coalition of Concerned Parents in San Jose, called
> > little Seng's death "an indictment on the failure of the whole child
> > protective services system in the state of California."[viii] Seng
> > Saephan's death is merely one of a string of abuses.  One week later
> > another baby died.  Social workers had refused to give the grandmother
> > custody of little Jorge Millan because her "house was too small."  The
> > toddler died from perforated intestines when the foster mother put a
> > shower hose first into his mouth, then in his rectum.  During supervised
> > visits, Jorge's family noticed cuts and bruises on his head.  They filed
> > complaints but apparently received no response.[ix] Mounting evidence
> > indicates that the system is quick to punish biological parents, but
> > dangerously tolerant toward other abusers.
> >
> > "The seemingly unlimited power of child welfare agencies and the case
> > workers they employ has some parents too demoralized and fearful to
> > discipline unruly kids,"[x] writes Washington Post editor Dana Mack.
> > She quotes a mother who just endured a painful encounter with Texas'
> > child protection agency.  "You're never able to be the same with your
> > kids after you go through an investigation.  I've become paranoid...
> > and less able to discipline."[xi] In her article, "Child-Abuse
> > Bureaucracy a New Parent Trap," Mack reports that "While 39 percent of
> > the over 2.6 million reports of child maltreatment each year are
> > substantiated, only 3 percent of these cases involve injury to a child
> > requiring any medical attention.  Indeed, substantiated cases of child
> > abuse include incredibly mild transgressions.
> > A Florida couple was convicted of abuse for restricting a foster child's
> > television viewing.
> >
> > "A San Diego grand jury recently found that the local child protective
> > system had 'isolated itself to a degree unprecedented in our system of
> > jurisprudence and ordered liberties.' But our lawmakers have for the
> > most part failed to respond to such warnings.  Aware of the enormous
> > media attention given to the subject of child abuse, they are unwilling
> > to appear 'insensitive' to the sufferings of children.  By not acting,
> > our elected officials are helping to maintain a system that has proven
> > unfriendly to family life and ultimately hazardous to the well-being of
> > American children."[xii] Ian Hoffman's damage suit which ended at the
> > Supreme Court, demonstrates the alarming shift from parental rights to
> > state controls.  Only two justices, Clarence Thomas and Atonin Scalia,
> > voted to hear his case.
> > Seven refused, in spite of the federal civil rights law which promises
> > that "Every person who under [state law]...  subjects...  any other
> > person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities
> > secured by the Constitution...  shall be liable to the party injured."
> > Today, the police and other investigators can be sued if they violate
> > "clearly established"
> > rights of citizens.  Social workers apparently cannot.
> >
> > "The District court held that the social workers were absolutely immune
> > from damages liability for this conduct.  Relying on its decision in
> > Salyer v.  Patrick, 874 F.  2d 374 (CA6 1989), the Court of Appeals
> > affirmed.
> > ...the decision below and other decisions granting absolute immunity to
> > social workers may be premised more on the notion that absolute immunity
> > serves important policy concerns than on either historical or functional
> > analyses.  See, e.g., Meyers, 812 F.  2d, at 1157.  To the extent they
> > are so based, they are misguided: The federal courts 'do not have a
> > license to establish immunities from section 1983 actions in the
> > interest of what [they] judge to be sound public policy.' "...We should
> > address the important threshold question whether social workers are,
> > under any circumstances, entitled to absolute immunity.
> > Accordingly, I respectfully dissent Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting
> > in the Supreme Court's denial of petition for writ of certiorari in
> > Hofman v.  Harris, April 25, 1994.
> >
> >
> > We shouldn't be surprised this legal and political assault on the
> > family.
> > The Biblical disciplines that established and sustained freedom in
> > America have faded from public life.  Since our nation know longer knows
> > God nor follows His Word, our rights have eroded along with our values.
> > That God assigned parents the role of training children (Proverbs 22:6)
> > means little to officials who scorn His ways.  Let us pray like Daniel
> > (9:3-19) to our sovereign Lord, confessing personal and national sins,
> > and asking for His gracious mercy for children and parents who are now
> > at risk from harmful government intervention.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > [i]Salyer v.  Patrick, 874 F.2d 374 (6th Circuit, 1989).
> >
> > [ii]Kathy Collins, "Children are not Chattel, "Free Inquiry, a
> > publication of CODESH (Council, for Democratic and Secular Humanism).
> > Cited in Free World Research Report (Des Moines, IA), February 1993.
> >
> > [iii]The son of a personal friend of mine.  The mother described the
> > circumstance and cited the words in a telephone conversation.  To
> > protect the privacy of the family, I prefer not to give the name unless
> > necessary.
> >
> > [iv]Benjamin Pimentel, "Grieving Laotian Family Mourns Infant," San
> > Francisco Chronicle, February 19, 1994.
> >
> > [v]Marilyn Lewis, "Infant's Death is Tragedy in East-West Culture
> > Clash,"
> > San Jose Mercury News, February 19, 1994.
> >
> > [vi]Ibid.
> >
> > [vii]Ibid.
> >
> > [viii]"Justices Allow Immunity for Social Workers," San Francisco
> > Chronicle, February 19, 1994.
> >
> > [ix]Elizabeth Fernandes, "Tot's death cuts short a tragic life," San
> > Francisco Examiner, February 27, 1994.
> >
> > [x]Dana Mack, "Child-abuse bureaucracy a new parent trap, The Sacramento
> > Bee, February 20, 1994.
> >
> > [xi]Ibid.
> >
> > [xii]Ibid.
> >