Men defend their families which is why we created a government. It is why we go to war. When the State kidnaps your children, will you surrender your family, or will you use their laws to punish the kidnappers? Child protective Services (CPS, or in some states DCF, DSS, DHS, DCFS, FIA, OCS) cannot investigate alleged child abuse or interview a child on private property without exigent circumstances or probable cause, or parent’s permission.
- Investigative interview of a child constitutes an unreasonable “search and seizure” Doe v. Heck No. 01-3648 (2003) found that a “no prior consent” interview was a clear violation of parent’s constitutional rights.
- Hurlman v. Rice (1991) The mere possibility of danger does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstance that would justify a warrantless search of a home or seizure of a child.
- Quilloin v. Walcott 434 US 246, 155 (1978) It is a due process violation when the state breaks up a family solely on a “best interest” analysis that is not supported by proof of parental unfitness.
You have a right to make your own decisions about your children. Back in the old days
we had a word for this. We called it liberty. Liberty is a constitutionally guaranteed right. The U.S. Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, at page 399 gave a partial definition of liberty:
The term Liberty “… denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his/her own conscience… the established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state to effect.”
In 1993 a federal court ruled in Qutb v. Strauss, 11 F3d 488: “Parents right to rear children without undue governmental interference is a fundamental component of due process.”
Swipies v. Kofka, 348 F3d 701 (2003):
Parents have a liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children. See Manzano, 60 F.3d at 509. This interest can be limited by the state’s compelling interest in protecting a child: “the parental liberty interest in keeping the family unit intact is not a clearly established right in the context of reasonable suspicion that parents may be abusing children.” See Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1437, 1462 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 828, 108 S.Ct. 97, 98 L.Ed.2d 58 (1987). “[W]hen a state official pursuing a child abuse investigation takes an action which would otherwise unconstitutionally disrupt familial integrity, he or she is entitled to qualified immunity, if such action is properly founded upon a reasonable suspicion of child abuse.” Manzano, 60 F.3d at 510-11.
Don’t be fooled by their term “reasonable suspicion”. It must be an objectively reasonable suspicion, not just a hunch. Don’t be fooled when the State kidnaps your children.
Jenkins v. Rock Hill School District, 513 F3d 580 (2008):
“parents have a liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of their children. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000); see also Pierce v. Soc’y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925) (Fourteenth Amendment prevents “unreasonably interfering with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.”); Barrett v. Steubenville City Schools, 388 F.3d 967, 972 (6th Cir. 2004) (noting the fundamental right of parents to raise their child has been clearly established); Johnson v. City of Cincinnati, 310 F.3d 484, 499 (6th Cir.2002) (“[A] family member’s right to participate in child rearing and education is one of the most basic and important associational rights protected by the Constitution.”).
1943 WL 54417 (U.S.) Appeal brief to the U.S. Supreme Court from Massachusetts in the 1943 case of Prince v. Massachusetts:
“The prosecution of appellant through misapplication of the statute is a step toward destroying one of the oldest and fundamental institutions of society, namely, the family. The family is the backbone of all orderly governments. It is to democracy what blood is to the human body. Drain away the warm family relationship and substitute the cold foster-parental care of the government and democracy will perish as surely as will the body when the blood ceases to circulate. If the individual in a democracy is to retain his integrity the family relations must not be impaired by misapplied laws. The strength of the nation depends upon the security of the family and family life.”
Note that this is the same Prince v Massachusetts case that the Illinois Supreme Court said was their basis for limiting parental roles.
Don’t be fooled when the State kidnaps your children.
If you want to challenge the loss of your rights, I recommend an online law course for those who will fight against the powers-that-be. It has save me and it might just be your get-out-of-jail card. HowToWinInCourt.com
Here is my in-depth explanation of REGULATIONS.
If regulations have you trapped by an agency in their Administrative Hearings, I recommend the book The Authoritarians: Their Assault on Individual Liberty, the Constitution, and Free Enterprise from the 19th Century to the Present.
You may also be interested in my book on Family Rights.