Although I am finding more and more individuals consider it to be irrelevant, the US Constitution is STILL supposed to be the supreme law of our land, and until it is declared null and void, it should be respected. Some of the agencies that consistently and wantonly violate the US Constitution are the CPS agencies of various states. How? Well, let me detail it further here than in previous article responses. Let's start with the fifth amendment:

Article V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In most cases where the child has been removed from their parents, the parents have never even been charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime. Legally, CPS cases are considered a "civil" matter (although as a parent, I would consider having my children taken from me to be a penalty far worse than the criminal penalty of incarceration). Children are removed from the home, often without ever being returned, without the parent being allowed their "day in court".

Let me say that I have no problem with the removal of a child from the home if abuse or neglect is deemed to constitute an imminent risk to their health and safety. There must, however, be an established set of objective criteria to determine this risk, the search should be conducted by trained law enforcement officers, and if sufficient evidence is NOT found for trial, the children should be returned home immediately. No exceptions.

Moving on, let's take a look at amendment 6, shall we?

Article VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

In most CPS cases, the parents are not given a speedy and public trial, and almost never given a jury trial. Further, CPS investigations are based on anonymous reporting that fails to allow the accused to be confronted by the witnesses against them.

When I argued this point in another forum, the illustration of an axe murderer was used. Ironically enough, though, the axe murderer DOES have the right to confront their accusers; parents accused of abuse or neglect of their children do not. Statistically speaking, abusive parents, even if they ARE guilty, are far less likely to constitute a danger to their neighbors if they are realeased than is an axe murderer.

To go further, simply because you do not believe a Constitutional right should exist is not just cause to nullify it in a court of law. The constitution was created for a reason.

Moving on, I'll highlight amendment 13, sections 1 and 2:

Article XIII.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

In one of the cases I detailed, the court ordered the mother to obtain employment (in addition to the father's employment), and for the couple to pay $500 in child support for their children. Though the motives of the court are highly suspect, that isn't relevant to THIS argument. What IS relevant is that the court ordered employment constitutes involuntary servitude.

If the parents were applying for government aid, then, yes, the government should determine that they should be working to seek employment. But as they are not seeking government aid, the court has no legal right to make such a stipulation. Knowing this, courts set child support payments at a percentage of wages for noncustodial fathers rather than requiring them to seek a second or third job to meet a set payment such as this. Because this is case specific, however, it may not apply to the CPS system as a whole, but it DOES apply in this particular case.

Now, for amendment 14:

Article XIV.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The removal of children without due process denies parents of equal protection under the law. Their financial inability to pay means that they do not have legal representation in an action where most are incapable of managing their own defense.

The laws protecting our children are, in their origins, at least, good laws. The means of enforcement have been undertaken by a system that ignores the legal rights and responsibilities in the process of enforcement. The children of the wealthy are rarely taken from their home; when they are, criminal charges nearly always follow, as the wealthy CAN afford legal representation to press their constitutional rights. The children of the poor are targetted as a supply source to provide much needed children for adoption, and the constitutional rights of the parents are routinely violated.

You may not care for the constitution or the protections it provides. But if you are blogging here, I can virtually guarantee that without constitutional safeguards, the contents of your blog could potentially be a grounds for indictment in criminal action. The constitution and its amendments were enacted for the protection and preservation of rights for American citizens. And when the constitution is repeatedly being violated in regards to the rights of ANYONE, it is our duty to speak out.