(For education and discussion purposes only)
By Michael Farris
Jill Floyd, a social worker for the Yolo County (Calif.) Department of Social Services (DSS), had the "goods" on the Calabretta family. An anonymous tipster had heard a child's voice yelling "No, Daddy, no" late at night. Another time, the tipster had heard a child's voice yelling "No, no, no" from the back yard. Additionally, the tipster knew that the Calabrettas home-schooled their children and were very religious.
Ms. Floyd went to the home four days after DSS received this report. She demanded entry. Shirley Calabretta, a member of Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) who had been instructed in her rights under the Fourth Amendment, graciously said "No." The Calabretta children were observed by the social worker when Shirley opened the door. Later that day, the social worker wrote that the children "did not appear to be abused or neglected."
Ms. Floyd went on a 10-day vacation. She hoped that another worker would complete the investigation while she was away. However, when she returned, she found the file still sitting, uncompleted. She then called for a policeman to accompany her to the home -- not for her protection, but simply to coerce entry into the Calabretta home.
Officer Nicholas Schwall knew nothing more than that children had been heard crying in the home when he coerced Mrs. Calabretta to open her door with the threatening words, "We will get into your home one way or another."
Once inside, Ms. Floyd insisted on segregating the two girls, then-aged 12 and 3. She asked the 12-year-old whether the children were spanked. The girl gave a remarkably mature description of biblical discipline and said that they were sometimes spanked with a short, thin dowel and other times with a Lincoln Log roofing piece. The girl denied any abuse or bruises.
Nonetheless, Ms. Floyd insisted on strip-searching the 3-year-old. She demanded that the 12-year-old remove the younger sister's pants. The older girl refused, and the little girl began to scream in the tug of war that ensued. Mrs. Calabretta came into the bedroom, despite having been told to stay out.
When she found out what the social worker was demanding, Mrs. Calabretta removed the little girl's pants to show the social worker a perfectly normal child's bottom without a hint of bruising.
HSLDA filed a civil rights lawsuit for the Calabretta family in the federal district court in Sacramento. We argued that the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits either social workers or police officers from coercing entry into a family's home without a warrant or probable cause evidence of an emergency.
The social worker and police officers defended on the basis that the normal rules of the Fourth Amendment do not apply to child welfare investigations. Additionally, they argued that the law concerning child welfare investigations was not clear and they were entitled to the good faith immunity defense for government officials who act in an area where the law is murky.
The federal trial court ruled in favor of the Calabrettas on all points. Unsurprisingly, the government agents appealed this decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
On Aug. 26, the 9th Circuit issued an extraordinarily strong decision affirming parental rights and the right of privacy of the family home. The court held that neither social workers nor police officers can coerce their way into a home unless they have a warrant or probable cause that there is an emergency situation. Anonymous tips such as the one here simply do not qualify.
The court said, "The reasonable expectation of privacy of individuals in their homes includes the interests of both parents and children in not having government officials coerce entry in violation of the Fourth Amendment and humiliate the parents in front of the children. An essential aspect of the privacy of the home is the parent's and the child's interest in the privacy of their relationship with each other."
We have heard from the "it-takes-a-village people" of the government's need to protect children from abuse. The 9th Circuit recognized that this is only one aspect of a child's legitimate needs. The decision said, "The government's interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse, but also protecting children's interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and the lawfully exercised authority of their parents."
Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, a Bush appointee to the court, has penned the most important endorsement of parental rights in any case I have litigated in the 23 years I've been in practice. It's about time that parents got some really good news.
(Michael Farris is the father of 10 home-schooled children and president of the Home School Legal Defense Association.)
Is this the Michael Farris that was a guest on KKLA 99.5FM last night? The Stephanie Edwards hour of 'Live from LA' from 7 to 8, following Duffy and Co. This is a good piece of news for all parents who care about their kids more than the government ever will.
I wanted to take a moment to observe that this is truely a fantastic ruling. Any time parents rights are upheld over the intrusions of socialist insurgents and malcontents, it's a great day in America.
These social workers think they are God. More often than not they are the opposite. Parents are filling in for God. And they don't some PC Nazi breaking down doors on a whim!
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
"On Aug. 26, the 9th Circuit issued an extraordinarily strong decision affirming parental rights and the right of privacy of the family home. The court held that neither social workers nor police officers can coerce their way into a home unless they have a warrant or probable cause that there is an emergency situation. Anonymous tips such as the one here simply do not qualify."
Ye gods--if the ultra-liberal Ninth Circuit is making rulings like this, there may be some hope for the Constitution after all.
An amazing decision for the 9th Circuit comrades. I suspect it had more to do with the squeamishness of intellectual liberals about police state tactics than any conservatism that the gratuitous praising of Bush's nominee is intended to indicate.
Thanks for the good news! Bump!
The social worker and police officers defended on the basis that the normal rules of the Fourth Amendment do not apply to child welfare investigations. Additionally, they argued that the law concerning child welfare investigations was not clear and they were entitled to the good faith immunity defense for government officials who act in an area where the law is murky.
Boy, I re-read my copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and I don't see that exception in there anywhere. If police officer ever hits my door step without a warrant and threatens a violent access, I will reply (1) Over my dead body, (2) Get a warrant or call SWAT; you have no other choices, and (3) What's your badge number, and the name of your supervising officer? I need to pass it to my attorney before the fun begins.
This is a great example of why I do not trust the government. This lady was extremely lucky, even though she had to upset her family's life by going into a lengthy court case. As recent history has demonstrated, they could have simply seized her kids, and imprisoned the parents until they coherced the right story from the 3 year old. THAT is why I won't turn over my kids to a "Peace Officer" at my front door. Once they leave my control, they can be abused at the government's wishes until they provide evidence against me, and no one can stop them. Except me.
The thought that a young child can be forceably strip-searched for her "own protection" is just scary. How much scarring was done emotionally by that episode -- more than any spanking could cause.
"Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, a Bush appointee to the court, has penned the most important endorsement of parental rights in any case I have litigated in the 23 years I've been in practice. It's about time that parents got some really good news."
All you anti-Bushers who say there's no difference between GWB and Gore take note. What kind of judges do you want appointed for the next 4-8 years? Would Clinton or Gore ever appoint this judge?
Quote of the Day- "The U.S. Constitution may not be perfect, but it's way better than what we have now".
This was posted yesterday as well.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Quote of the Day- "The U.S. Constitution may not be perfect, but it's way better than what we have now".
Of course it is better. What we have now is Republicrats.
[
Refresh
|
Top
|
Last
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |