Court decision causing Contra Costa to alter child protection policies
By Rick Radin
Contra Costa Times
Posted: 02/10/2010 06:37:08 PM PST
Updated: 02/11/2010 05:01:57 PM PST

A federal court ruling in an Oregon case has some Bay Area counties looking at how they handle child abuse investigations. 

In accord with an appeals court ruling, Contra Costa County no longer will interview children in physical and sexual abuse cases without parents' permission.

Alameda County is reviewing its options but advising its workers to use discretion. 

A San Mateo County prosecutor scoffed at the ruling and said he would wait to see what happens when it is appealed.

Starting this week, Contra Costa County caseworkers no longer go to schools and other outside locations to talk to children without their parents' permission about allegations of physical or sexual abuse except when the child is in immediate danger, said Valerie Earley, the county's director of children and family services.

If parents don't agree to an interview, the county can still seek a warrant to talk to the child, which will take time, Earley said.

FULL STORY

New from Oregon School Boards Association

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a police officer cannot interview a student at school regarding child abuse without a warrant, probable cause, exigent circumstances or parental consent. Similarly, the court suggested that a DHS caseworker must have a court order prior to interviewing a student at school, unless the parent consents to the interview. 

A caseworker was notified of allegations regarding the sexual abuse of two children by their father. He was assigned to assess the girls’ safety. Upon learning that the father was being released from custody, he became concerned for the girls’ safety. He interviewed one of the girls at her elementary school, and a law enforcement officer was present for the interview. The mother sued the caseworker and the law enforcement officer alleging a Fourth Amendment violation because the in-school interview was conducted without a warrant, parental consent, probable cause, or exigent circumstances. The mother’s claims against the school district and school counselor were dismissed. 

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the seizure was unlawful because it was not based on probable cause. The interview constituted a seizure, which must be reasonable to be lawful. Reasonableness depends on the evidence supporting the government’s desire to seize someone. Generally, the government must show enough evidence to create probable cause. The court held that a caseworker’s belief that the girls’ safety was in danger did not constitute probable cause. 

The school-setting exception to the probable cause requirement does not apply when a caseworker and police officer seize a student in the school setting. In the school setting, if a teacher or school official seizes a student to maintain discipline on school grounds, then the justification for the seizure can be something less than probable cause. The lower standard did not apply in this case because the students were not seized by teachers or school officials to maintain discipline on school grounds. 

Greene v Camreta, (9th Cir. Dec. 10, 2009) 2009 WL 4674129

January 27, 2010
Fourth Amendment rights upheld for KIDS
State of Washington makes a determination
on how CPS is to handle child interviews after the Greene v. Camreta case
Which means- Forcing you to talk means you have been SEIZED. 

KIDS now have CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, so LEARN THEM.
LEARN YOUR FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT NOW!

Amendment IV The right of the people (now including kids too!) to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be 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

You don't have to talk with CPS agents, so DON'T

Kids don't want or need European Socialism's Rights of the Child, when AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are much better.

Just for fun, Here's our Kid's Rights page from 2002  Also see our SATIRE letter from the poison pen of Liz B. Bueldyke, CPS Caseworker

Findlaw- Greene v. Camreta, No. 06-35333
December 11, 2009 12:49 PM

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging a student was unlawfully searched and seized, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) the general law of search warrants applies to child abuse investigations; 2) however, precedent did not clearly establish that the in-school seizure of a student suspected of being the victim of child sexual abuse could be subject to traditional Fourth Amendment protections; and 3) applying the prior lower standard, defendants' actions were not so clearly invalid as to strip them of qualified immunity.  However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant-social worker secured an order by misrepresenting his conversations with plaintiff-mother; and 2) social worker's decision to exclude mother from her daughters' medical examinations violated the parents' clearly established familial rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Read Greene v. Camreta, No. 06-35333

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted March 6, 2008

Filed December 10, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Berzon

Counsel

For Appellant:

Mikel R. Miller, Law Office of Mikel R. Miller, Bend, OR

For Appellees:

Hardy Myers, Mary H. Williams, David B. Thompson, Office of the Attorney General, Bend, OR

On December 10, 2009 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for the District of Oregon concluded a case titled-

Sarah GREENE, personally and as next friend for S.G., a minor, and K.G., a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Bob CAMRETA; Deschutes County; James Alford, Deschutes County Deputy Sheriff; Bend Lapine School District; Terry Friesen, Defendants-Appellees., C.A.9 (Or.), December 10, 2009

"...we hold that the investigation conducted by Camreta and Alford and the removal and examination instigated by Camreta all violated Sarah and the girls’ constitutional rights. As to the investigation, however, we conclude that Camreta and Alford cannot be liable in damages because they have qualified immunity."

See THE CASE  See OPINION BY: Ann Aiken and OPINION by:  Marsha S. Berzon

CPS-

UNCONSTITUTIONAL

"He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance. " - -The Declaration of Independence