The journey from there to here

Link

Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano vetoed a bill which would have allowed parents to continue to request jury trials to determine whether or not their parental rights would be terminated. Because of Napolitano's decision, the determinations will be made by judges, wtihout the rights that parents should Constitutionally be afforded.

The fact that Governor Napolitano is allowed to make such a decision shows one of the glaring errors in the way our laws are so often made. You see, The Bill of Rights protects the right to a jury trial for criminal offenses; by classifying child abuse and neglect as "civil" offenses, the states circumvent this law with impunity. But in classifying child abuse and neglect as they so often have, they are further victimizing children that need protection.

You see, by making CPS action a civil remedy, they are denying a child full human rights. If someone abuses you or forcefully withholds essentials for life from you, it is a crime against you, the victim, and it will be prosecuted as such. The actions of CPS do not prosecute parents for these actions, but simply remove the children from the custody of their parents, basing their determinations on a preponderance of evidence that is all too often perjured, coerced, or otherwise manipulated. CPS has not as of yet consistently been held accountable to ethical behavior in the courtroom, and a jury trial, while having some drawbacks, does offer a forum where the ethical behavior of CPS can be challenged publicly.

Even if a child is property, as the actions of CPS would seem to indicate, denying a trial by jury where termination of parental rights are considered is placing the value of the child below $20, as the seventh amendment provides for trial by jury in all civil suits where the value of the item contested is greater than $20. So, in summary, according to the great state of Arizona, your child is: a) not human; worth less than $20.

One of the things we need to remember as we address the concerns of child abuse and neglect is that BOTH are crimes, and that there are laws on the books to criminally prosecute parents who abuse or neglect their children. The fact that such laws are rarely employed shows that we do not have an interest in protecting our children, only in using them as a revenue source by placing CPS on a quota system whether or not the facts actually merit an increased number of removals.

If our children really matter, as we so often insist, we will begin working towards real reform that will help to provide them with a better, more substantial future. Continuing as we are only diminishes their value and creates a "lost generation" of state created orphans.


Comments
on Jul 05, 2006
Where is the ACLU when REAL civil liberties are being denied?  That is as big a crime.
on Jul 05, 2006

I see a day when the criminal court will be secondary to civil court.  The fact that a person can be acquitted in criminal court, but then successfully sued for what the courts had already said they were't guilty of, undermines the whole system.  Whichever judge it was the first allowed that, single handedly put the justice system in our nation on a slow drip of Kavorkian Cocktail.

The only way I can see to reverse this trend with CPS is for parents to stand up and launch a class action suit against the CPS in their state.  The problem with that is, most people consider CPS a bunch of over worked, underpaid angels of mercy, out to save every child from their viscious, drug strung out parents.

Since "victim = respect" how far do you think such a suit would go?

 

 

on Jul 05, 2006

I see a day when the criminal court will be secondary to civil court. The fact that a person can be acquitted in criminal court, but then successfully sued for what the courts had already said they were't guilty of, undermines the whole system. Whichever judge it was the first allowed that, single handedly put the justice system in our nation on a slow drip of Kavorkian Cocktail

Amen!  I dont know if Simpson or Blake did it.  But they were found not guilty by a jury of their peers.  But the snake oil salesmen have decided that not guilty means guilty.  I think the snake oil salesmen should start paying the fees - for their avarice.

on Jul 10, 2006
Janet's veto is very consistent with her liberal paternalism - the state must secure hegemony over the populace. For the good of the populace, of course.