How to write a Motion To Dismiss for CPS Juvenile Court In Ohio

The goal here is to show the court that the assessment of harm and neglect against you should have been UNFOUNDED (you are not guilty) and therefore the court has no jurisdiction over the child and should close the case.

You will also want to show that the intake worker lied and coerced you which means that the judges decisions to make your child a ward of the court was based on more than hearsay (which is legal in most juvenile courts) but was based on distortion, misrepresentation, lies, and omission. This would mean that the judge would have to reconsider the evidence.

If you actually DID neglect or harm your child according to the state statutes, and they have shown evidence of it, this will not work for you.

Check out our LEGAL DISCLAIMER before you get started.

Step 1. Download this FREE program to write your Motion To Dismiss in. It is called Open Office.

Step 2. Download this template and open it using the Open Office program.

Step 3. Download this EXAMPLE to see what yours should look like.

Step 4. Start writing your story of who you are and how you got involved with CPS using the format of the template. Everything that is printed in red must be changed or taken off.

Step 5. When it comes time to talk about a certain subject, use the case law citations and CPS statutes and state law below to back your claims.

CLICK HERE to see an online version - Motion To Dismiss

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LANE COUNTY

JUVENILE DEPARTMENT

In the matter of

Haiden Tipaloo

Jaiden Tipaloo

Kaiden Tipaloo

Minor Children,

Court Numbers: 16JU00258

16JU00325

16JU00765

MOTION TO DISMISS DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICTION

Comes now Petitioner Jeramey Tipaloo (Father) based upon the attached Declaration, moves the court for a Judgment dismissing the above-captioned cases.

DATED this day of November _____, 2016

_____________________________________

Petitioner, signature

Submitted by:

________________________________________________________________________________

Petitioner, Print Name Address or Contact Address

________________________________________________________________________________

City, State, Zip Telephone or Contact Telephone

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LANE COUNTY

JUVENILE DEPARTMENT

In the matter of

Haiden Tipaloo

Jaiden Tipaloo

Kaiden Tipaloo

Minor Children

Court Numbers: 16JU00258

16JU00325

16JU00765

MOTION TO DISMISS DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICTION

I, Jeramey Tipaloo (Father), Petitioner in the above proceeding, make this declaration in support of my motion to dismiss the above-captioned cases. I request the court dismiss these cases for the following reasons:

On January 12th, 2016, at 2 p.m.,CPS intake caseworkers Brooke Sinclair, Megan Favreau and (4) Florence P.D. Police Officers made face to face contact with Jeramey J. Tullis.

Intake Worker Brooke Sinclair stated at the door that “We are here to investigate a report of child abuse and neglect,”

I felt I had nothing to hide and was sure that my children had never been abused or neglected, welcomed the intake caseworkers and Florence P.D. Officers into the home.

I have a naturaly loud voice. Mix that with the emotional stress of 4 police and 2 caseworkers entering my home and accusing me of neglect and abuse of my children. My demeanor was as any normal father would be to protect his children from being taken away. My voice was loud and demanding of proof of harm.

The intake worker would not give me any specifics of how I had harmed my children.

I stationed myself leaning backwards on the kitchen bar with my legs crossed and demanded the caseworker for documentation of proof of the allegations.

The intake worker, Brooke Sinclair, sat on the couch silent, looking aimlessly around at coworker Megan Favreau and police officers for answers. 

Meanwhile the two older boys were scared of the situation and kept behind my legs where they felt safe. The oldest boy was intuitivly following my demenor by peeking out from my legs and telling the intakeworker “GO! GO!”

The intake worker made a decision from that scene that there would be inpending danger caused to the children and that it was an emergency to take all 3 children.

I called my wife at work saying “Come home quick! CPS is here and they are taking our children.”

She arrived at home and met the intake workers Brooke Sinclair, and Megan Favreau outside on front step. Brooke Sinclair said “There is reasonable cause to believe that there is a threat of harm in the household.”

When my wife entered the home, she saw me leaning against the kitchen island with my back and Haiden and Jaiden are behind me giggling and playing with each other. They were running around with smiles on their faces while playing

The youngest child was sound asleep in his bassinet in the bedroom.

Intake worker Brooke Sinclair stated to my wife “The children were cowering behind the father.”

My wife asked the CW for a CPS handbook so that we could know our rights. The CW handed her a pamphlet that explained nothing of what was happening at this time and why she had the right to take our children.

My wife asked to speak to Brooke Sinclair’s supervisor (Julie Harper).

The caseworker got on her phone and walked out towards the driveway. After a few minutes she hung up the phone and returned to the front step.

My wife asked why she did not allow her to speak to her supervisor while she had her on the phone.

The CW stated she was not allowed to let her use her phone and she preceded to give my wife her supervisors business card.

My wife immediately attempted to call the supervisor from the house phone and got the answering machine. She then left a voicemail for Julie Harper to contact her as soon as possible.

My wife asked for a court order and the caseworker walked out to her car and grabbed a piece of paper and wrote “Threat of Harm” on it.

Meanwhile, I called his Domestic Violence Advocate Pamela Long at Siuslaw Outreach Services. I stated that Pamela wanted to speak to Brooke Sinclair.

The CW refused to talk to her and stated “I do not have time to talk to her.”

One of the Police officers got on the phone and advised Pamela that CPS was here and they are taking the children into CPS care.

The DV advocate asked to speak to me again, in return she asked me to hand the phone to the CW and that she needed to speak to her.

I handed the CW the phone. As soon as she had it in her hand, she hung it up refusing to speak to the Domestic Violence Advocate.

We both objected to the caseworker’s decision. The Florence Police Department officers and CPS caseworkers both stated that if we interfere with the taking of the children, we would both would be arrested.

Both caseworkers and a officer all cornered Haiden, Jaiden, and my wife all in the laundry room. The intake caseworker said to my wife, “Meaghan if you come with us and leave Jeramey we can get you and your boys into a Hotel room tonight and you can keep your kids, but Jeramey cannot come and cannot have contact with you or the children.”

My wife begged with the caseworker, “Please don’t take our boys, Our boys need us, you don’t how how much trauma you are causing them right now.”

We asked if we could feed the children the meal I had just made for them. The CW said “No we will get them something to eat.”

The caseworker proceeded to get Haiden and Jaiden into the bedroom to get clothes on them.

My wife then asked the CW “Can I please breastfeed our newborn please before you take him? You just woke him up and I do not have a breastpump.

The CW said “No, we have some formula at the DHS office we could give him.”

The second CW, Megan Favreau went into the master bedroom grabbed the baby (Kaiden) from his bassinet where he was asleep. Immediately put him into the car seat and could not figure out how to buckle the infant into the car seat. She then took him to the CPS vehicle.

While we were in the boys bedroom getting the boys clothes, the CW came into the room with clothes too small from a bag marked S.O.S. for donation and put them on the children.

The CW asked for our car seats to transport them and began searching around in closets and rooms for them without any permission. We pulled the car seats out of the living room closet. The CW’s then put the children into the back of their car.

The CW suggested that my wife go with the police escort up to the DHS office in Florence to speak with her more about the reason why CPS was taking our children into protective care.

My wife offered to get some juice for the kids but the CW would not wait for her. I then gave it to a police officer to give to the CW.

My wife took the escort ride up to the local DHS office in Florence. She then waited for the CW half an hour in a room by herself. All she could hear was our children screaming at the top of their lungs.

The intake CW entered the room and said that she had me on the speaker phone. I was distraught and was crying and blaming myself for the children being taken away. My loudness again was taken as proof that there was a impending safety threat.

The CW then preceded to use coercion by telling my wife “You should leave Jeramey and if you want any chance of getting your children back you should sign these papers.” She asked for a copy of them and has never received the copies to this date.

We object to the coercion from the CW to get my wife to sign a plea of guilt at the DHS office in Florence Oregon. She did not know at that time that that paper she signed was a plea of guilt. She hearby resinds her signiture on this form. “Consent” that is the product of official intimidation or harassment is not consent at all. Citizens do not forfeit their constitutional rights when they are coerced to comply with a request that they would prefer to refuse. Florida v. Bostick, 501 US 429 (1991). Coercion can be mental as well as physical. Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 US (1960)

Again, neither of us were told what specific impending threat of harm caused our children to be taken away.

I asked the CW if our children had anything to eat. The CW stated “ We gave them some snacks.”

The pleading filed by the agency contained no information indicating any actual imminent danger to our children or that any one of them had been injured on the day they were removed. The allegations and contentions in the pleading filed by the agency had no factual support. This went against the requirement of 419B.866 (3)(d)

The pleading filed by the agency stated the reason that the children were taken as, “One or both parents’ or caregivers’ behavior is violent and/or they are acting (behaving) dangerously.” CPS has never shown this court any evidence that there was any violence involved between us at any time. The evidence that was submitted to the court only showed that there were arguments and yelling. Never any violence. This went against the requirement of 419B.866 (3)(d)

Oregon law provides that a child may be removed without a court order only if, based on the totality of the circumstances, there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is in imminent danger of physical or sexual abuse. Moreover, the agency must show that it is contrary to the welfare of the child to remain in our home, and consistent with the circumstances and ensuring that the child is safe, that reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal from their home.

After a child is removed without a court order, Oregon law mandates that CPS show that: (1) there is a continuing danger to the physical health or safety of the child if the child is returned home, or there is evidence of sexual abuse and the child is at substantial risk of future sexual abuse; (2) it is contrary to the child’s welfare to remain in the home; and (3) reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate need for removal.” All of these things must be shown by the agency in order to meet their burden of proof under Oregon Juvinile laws.

CPS did not show this court any one of these mandated requirements were fulfilled because they did not first meet their burden of proof with evidence that there was any violence. This went against the requirements of 419B.866 (3)(c)(d)

CPS could not show that there is a continuing danger to the physical health or safety of the child if the child is returned home or that it is contrary to the children’s welfare to remain in the home because they have never proven that there was a safety threat of violence in the first place. This went against the requirements of 419B.866 (3)(c)(d)

If there is no imminent or inpending dangers such as “severe abuse” “severe harm” according to the definitions of 419B.005, OAR 413-015-0425, OAR 413-015-0115, and OAR 413-015-0115 (47) then there is no safety threat. If there is no safety threat, then this allegation of “One or both parents’ or caregivers’ behavior is violent and/or they are acting (behaving) dangerously.” should have been UNFOUNDED.

CPS has failed to fulfill the requirements of 419B.866 (3)(c)(d) in that they failed to show the court WHAT imminent abuse or severe harm would have befell the children if left at home. Oregon law states that that the intakeworker should be able to describe it. CPS failed to describe it as per OAR 413-015-0115. If it cannot be described then the accusations should have been UNFOUNDED.

The intake worker and the CW have never clearly described and articulated what severe harm was imminant or about to happen. The intake worker and CW have clearly based her finding on a gut feeling.

OAR 413-015-0115 Definitions

  1. Observable” means specific, real, can be seen and described. Observable does not include suspicion or gut feeling.”

CPS knowingly misled the Court with statements in the caseworker’s sworn affidavit and with sworn testimony at the ex parte hearing required by the Oregon Juvinile Code. CPS knowingly misled the court with lies of ommission by not showing the court that there was NO violence in the mother and fathers relationship and there was no violence on the day of the children’s abduction. There was no imminent danger to the children on the evening that the children were removed.

By intentionally and consciously ommiting this important information, shows a doing wrong for dishonest purpose. This went against the requirements of 419B.866 (3)(a)

419B.866 Signing pleadings required; effect of signing or not signing.

(3)(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (d) of this subsection, by signing, filing or otherwise submitting an argument in support of a petition, answer, motion or other paper, an attorney or party makes the certifications to the court identified in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this subsection and further certifies that the certifications are based on the person’s reasonable knowledge, information and belief formed after the making of any inquiry that is reasonable under the circumstances.

(b) A party or attorney certifies that the petition, answer, motion or other paper is not being presented for any improper purpose including, but not limited to, harassing or causing unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

(c) An attorney certifies that the claims and other legal positions taken in the petition, answer, motion or other paper are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.

(d) A party or attorney certifies that the allegations and other factual assertions in the petition, answer, motion or other paper are supported by evidence. An allegation or other factual assertion that the party or attorney does not wish to certify is supported by evidence must be specifically identified. The party or attorney certifies that the party or attorney reasonably believes that an allegation or other factual assertion so identified will be supported by evidence after further investigation and discovery. [2001 c.622 §20]

This case should have been closed at screening because it did not constitute a report of child abuse or neglect, as defined in ORS 419B.005

(4) Close at Screening: A report will be closed at screening if one of the following subsections applies:

(a) The screener determines that information received:

(A) Does not constitute a report of child abuse or neglect, as defined in ORS 419B.005 or, when applicable, Oregon Laws 2016, chapter 106, section 36, and the screener determines:

  1. That the information describes behaviors, conditions, or circumstances that pose a risk to a child;

Oregon Laws 2016, chapter 106, section SECTION 38. (1) The investigation conducted by the Department of Human Services under section 37 of this 2016 Act must result in one of the following findings:

(a) That the report is substantiated. A report is substantiated when there is reasonable cause to believe that the abuse of a child in care occurred.

(b) That the report is unsubstantiated. A report is unsubstantiated when there is no evidence that the abuse of a child in care occurred.

  1. That the report is inconclusive. A report is inconclusive when there is some indication that the abuse occurred but there is insufficient evidence to conclude that there is reasonable cause to believe that the abuse occurred.

SECTION 39. ORS 419B.005 is amended to read: 419B.005. As used in ORS 419B.005 to 419B.050, unless the context requires otherwise:

(1)(a) “Abuse” means:

(A) Any assault, as defined in ORS chapter 163, of a child and any physical injury to a child which has been caused by other than accidental means, including any injury which appears to be at variance with the explanation given of the injury.

(B) Any mental injury to a child, which shall include only observable and substantial impairment of the child’s mental or psychological ability to function caused by cruelty to the child, with due regard to the culture of the child.

(G) Threatened harm to a child, which means subjecting a child to a substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare.

Neither the intakeworker or the caseworker have reported in any way that the children suffered from any “assault”, “Physical injury”, “observable and substantial impairment” or “ substantial risk of harm”. This report should have been unsubstantiated or NOT FOUNDED. There was insufficient information to support this being a disposition of child abuse or neglect.

The Case Progress Evaluation Summary reads; “On January 5th, 2016, the agency received a call of concern for the children in the care of Mr. Tullis and Ms. Gotterba. The agency responded on 1/13/2016 and CPS caseworkers Brook Sinclair, Megan Favreau and Florence Police Officers made face to face contact with Mr. Tullis at his residence in Florence, Oregon.”

The law at ORS 413-015-0210 states that the caseworker must make contact within 5 calendar days. The law also states that the information from an informant must constituted a report of child abuse or neglect as defined in ORS 419B.005. If it does not, then the report must be closed at screening. No where in the caseworkers report to the court or in the original petition to the court did DHS or CPS show that they had met these requirements.

According to 413-015-0210

Determining Department’s Response and Required Time Lines for CPS Information

(1) After the screener completes screening activities required by OAR 413-015-0205, and the screener determines the information received is CPS information, the screener must determine the Department response, either CPS assessment required or close at screening. If a CPS assessment is required, the screener must then determine the time line for the Department response, either within 24 hours or within five calendar days.

(2) CPS assessment required. A CPS assessment is required if:

(a) The screener determines that information received constitutes a report of child abuse or neglect, as defined in ORS 419B.005, and the information indicates:

(A) The alleged perpetrator is a legal parent of the alleged child victim;

(B) The alleged perpetrator resides in the alleged child victim’s home;

  1. The alleged perpetrator may have access to the alleged child victim, and the parent or caregiver may not be able or willing to protect the child;

(3) Response Time Lines. If the screener determines that a CPS assessment is required, the screener must:

(a) Determine the CPS assessment response time line. The time line for the Department response refers to the amount of time between when the report is received at screening and when the CPS worker is required to make an initial contact. When determining the response time, the screener must take into account the location of the child, how long the child will be in that location, and access that others have to the child.

(A) Within 24 hours: This response time line is required, unless paragraph (B) of this subsection applies, when the information received constitutes a report of child abuse or neglect as defined in ORS 419B.005 or, when applicable, Oregon Laws 2016, chapter 106, section 36.

(B) Within five calendar days: This response time line must only be used when the screener can clearly document how the information indicates the child’s safety will not be compromised by not responding within 24 hours and whether an intentional delay to allow for a planned response is less likely to compromise the safety of the child.

(4) Close at Screening: A report will be closed at screening if one of the following subsections applies:

(a) The screener determines that information received:

(A) Does not constitute a report of child abuse or neglect, as defined in ORS 419B.005

419B.005 Definitions. As used in ORS 419B.005 to 419B.050, unless the context requires otherwise:

(1)(a) “Abuse” means:

(A) Any assault, as defined in ORS chapter 163, of a child and any physical injury to a child which has been caused by other than accidental means, including any injury which appears to be at variance with the explanation given of the injury.

(B) Any mental injury to a child, which shall include only observable and substantial impairment of the child’s mental or psychological ability to function caused by cruelty to the child, with due regard to the culture of the child.

(D) Sexual abuse, as described in ORS chapter 163.

(F) Negligent treatment or maltreatment of a child, including but not limited to the failure to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter or medical care that is likely to endanger the health or welfare of the child.

(G) Threatened harm to a child, which means subjecting a child to a substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare.

I object to the intake workers witch hunt to try and find something to pin on me. The law states that there must already be a known exigent circumstance existing before conducting a search or seizure without a warrant or court order. This exigent circumstance must directly be associated with harm to the childs life or limb. “Government officials are required to obtain prior judicial authorization before intruding on a parent’s custody of her child unless they possess information at the time of the seizure that establishes ‘reasonable cause to believe that the child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury and that the scope of the intrusion is reasonably necessary to avert that specific injury.’” Mabe v. San Bernardino Cnty., Dep’t of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001)

I object that the intake worker has clearly violated our children’s Fourth Amendment rights. A man demanding his rights and his childrens rights with a loud voice does not equal “violence”.The father was not directing his negative attention to the children. The father was not violently in a physical fight with anyone where a child could get in the way and be harmed. The children had no bruises or marks to show that abuse had already happened to them and that it was impending that it would happen again soon. Two children playing behind their fathers legs does not equal “cowering” as the CW insinuates. Two children hiding behind their fathers legs when 6 people are in the same room arguing with the parent does not equal impending doom, exigent circumstances or imminent danger to the children.

For purposes of the Fourth Amendment, a “seizure” of a person is a situation in which a reasonable person would feel that he is not free to leave, and also either actually yields to a show of authority from police or social workers or is physically touched by police. Persons may not be “seized” without a court order or being placed under arrest. California v. Hodari, 499 U.S. 621 (1991).

Being there was no evidence of an imminent threat of harm to any one of our children, the CPS investigator violated our childen’s clearly established fourth amendment rights.

The Fourth Amendment

The right of the people 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.

Our children are undeniably entitled to stay with their parents without governmental interference.

The CPS investigater had neither a warrant nor probable cause to seize our children.

In order to prevail, therefore, she must have demonstrate a governmental interest sufficient to justify dispensing with constitutional protections. The record before us is devoid of such.

As previously noted, there was no evidence of danger to our children sufficient to implicate the state’s interest in protecting the health, safety, and welfare of them as minors.

You cannot seize childern simply because their parent is yelling.

The social workers were specifically charged with protecting children where there were allegations of abuse. There is no indication in this record of any threat to our children’s safety, nor was she investigating allegations that our children had previously suffered abuse at the hands of their parents.

Under the circumstances, our children enjoyed a clearly established right to maintain their relationship free from interference by state actors.

According to OAR 413-015-0400, when the agency makes a determination of the presence of a safety threat, there are 5 factors that all have to be met and present at the same time in order for it to be FOUNDED.

  1. A family condition is out-of-control.

According to OAR 413-015-0425 “Out of control” means”

  1. (d) “family behaviors, conditions, or circumstances that can affect a child’s safety are unrestrained, unmanaged, without limits or monitoring, not subject to influence or manipulation within the control of the family, resulting in an unpredictable and chaotic family environment.”

The father was in control of himself and restrained by leaning against the kitchen bar and crossing his legs. He only argued his points with a loud voice. He did not threaten anyone, throw things, or break things. He was simply reacting to a situation where officials were trying to take his children without due cause. Even if these actions and attitudes resulted in a chaotic family environment, it did not fullfill the other factors that would have entitled the intakeworker to take the children.

  1. A family condition is likely to result in harm.

According to OAR 413-015-0115 “Harm” means:

  1. “….. any kind of impairment, damage, detriment, or injury to a child’s physical, sexual, psychological, cognitive, or behavioral development or functioning. “Harm” is the result of child abuse or neglect and may vary from mild to severe.”

A father leaning up against a kitchen bar did not show any actions that would likely result in direct harm to his children.

  1. The severe effect is imminent: reasonably could happen soon.

According to OAR 413-015-0115 (47) “Severe harm” means:

(a) Significant or acute injury to a child’s physical, sexual, psychological, cognitive, or behavioral development or functioning;

(b) Immobilizing impairment; or

  1. Life threatening damage.

Even if it were true that the children were cowering behind their father, the intake worker and CW have never seen anything even close to a severe effect or severe harm that was imminent.

  1. The family condition is observable and can be clearly described and articulated.

OAR 413-015-0115 Definitions

  1. Observable” means specific, real, can be seen and described. Observable does not include suspicion or gut feeling.”

The intake worker and the CW have never clearly described and articulated what severe harm was imminant or about to happen. The intake worker and CW have clearly based her finding on a gut feeling.

  1. There is a vulnerable child.

According to OAR 413-015-0115 “Vulnerable child” means:

(53) …..a child who is unable to protect himself or herself. This includes a child who is dependent on others for sustenance and protection.

A “vulnerable child” is defenseless, exposed to behaviors, conditions, or circumstances that he or she is powerless to manage, and is susceptible and accessible to a threatening parent or caregiver.

Vulnerability is judged according to physical and emotional development, ability to communicate needs, mobility, size, and dependence.

According to OAR 413-015-1000

Threat of harm, includes all activities, conditions, and circumstances that place the child at threat of severe harm of physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, mental injury, or other child abuse or neglect.

According to OAR 413-015-0425

Present Danger is an IMMEDIATE, SIGNIFICANT, and clearly observable severe harm or threat of severe harm occurring in the present.

According to OAR 413-015-0425

Impending Danger is a state of danger in which family conditions, behaviors, attitudes, motive, emotions and /or situations are out of control and , while the danger may not be currently active, it can be anticipated to have severe effects on a child at any time.

The key word here is severe as in SEVERE HARM and SEVERE EFFECTS.

According to OAR 413-015-0115 statute (47) “Severe harm” means:

(a) Significant or acute injury to a child’s physical, sexual, psychological, cognitive, or behavioral development or functioning;

(b) Immobilizing impairment; or

(c) Life threatening damage.

The CPS’s evaluation should have been decided as UNFOUNDED according to Oregon law and CPS’s own rules. This claim of Neglect and Threat of Harm should never have been brought to this court because it does not fit the statutory definition of child abuse or neglect.

CPS has not shown evidense in any manner that our children have suffered ANY severe harm. Nor have they shown that any severe effects were imminent such as:

  • Significant or acute injury
  • Immobilizing impairment
  • or Life threatening damage

CPS has never proven that our current mental condition placed or will place our children at a threat of severe harm.

The CW has also stated in her Ongoing Safety Plans and the Child Welfare Case Plans that,”There is a long history of domestic violence occuring between Meaghan Gotterba and Jeramy Tullis. The children have wittnessed the DV betweem their parents.”

Although arguing or talking in foul language is not appropreate in front of children or anywhere else, arguing is not part of CPS’s own examples of this mentioned safety threat. CPS has never shown evidence that any of our children “…demonstrates an observable, significant effect.” The term “Family Discord” is not even used in the discriptions of any of the Oregon Safety Threats.

Below is the examples of this peticular Safety Threat as brought out in CPS’s own Screening and Assessment Handbook, Chapter II –

  • Examples:
  • Violence includes hitting, beating or physically assaulting a child, spouse or other family member.
  • Violence includes acting dangerously toward a child or others, including throwing things, brandishing weapons, aggressively intimidating and terrorizing. This includes making believable threats of homicide or suicide.
  • Family violence involves physical and verbal assault on a parent, caregiver or member of the child’s household in the presence of a child; the child witnesses the activity; and the child demonstrates an observable, significant effect.
  • Family violence occurs and a child has been assaulted or attempted to intervene.
  • Family violence occurs and a child could be inadvertently harmed even though the child may not be the actual target of the violence.
  • Parent/caregiver whose behavior outside of the home (e.g., drugs, violence, aggressiveness, hostility) creates an environment within the home which threatens child safety (e.g., drug labs, gangs, drive-by shootings).
  • Due to the batterer’s controlling behavior, the child’s basic needs are unmet.

The federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) and Oregon law require Child Welfare caseworkers to make efforts to prevent the need to remove a child from his or her home prior to placing the child in protective custody, to return the child to a parent, and to achieve permanency for a child who cannot be returned to his or her home.

The intakeworker’s wrongful conduct violated clearly established law. Genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the reasonableness of the intakeworker’s conduct.

This blatant disregard for the childrens 4th amendment rights, the states rules and regulations and Federal laws has striped the intakeworker and caseworker of their Qualified Immunity. They both have been trained in their scope of work and clearly went against what a reasonable person would have known.

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability when they are acting within their discretionary authority and their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396(1982);

Characteristically the Court has defined these elements by identifying the circumstances in which qualified immunity would not be available. Referring both to the objective and subjective elements, we have held that qualified immunity would be defeated if an official “knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the [plaintiff], or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury . . . .” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)

I object to the intakeworkers “fishing expedition” and “witch hunt” to try and find a reason to take our children. Even if it was true that the children were “cowering” behind me, the intakeworker clearly did not see a exigent circumstances that would harm life or limb.

Under “Reasons Services Could Not be Provided to Prevent removal Of the Child from the home” in the report to the court, the CW gives the reason “During the initial assessment, Mr Tullis was angry and volatile with the DHS intakeworker. The agency was unable to develop an in-home plan due to Mr Tullis’ lack of cooperation.

Nowhere in the law of OAR 413-015-0400 and nowhere in CPS statutes does it require that an in-home-plan be put into place if there is no reason­able cause to believe that child abuse or neglect occurred or was about to occur soon.

Nowhere in the law of OAR 413-015-0400 and nowhere in CPS statutes does it require that an in-home plan should be put into place if the parent is angry that someone is there trying to take their children away.

It is to only be put into place IF the intakeworker has reason­able cause to believe that child abuse or neglect occurred or it is going to occur soon.

This claimed exigent is less than the real, genuine or bona fide emergency required by the constitutions, federal and state.

The only reason that the intakeworker took the children was because the fathers yelling was of inconvenience to the intakeworker and not of exigent circumstances relating to the children. The fathers yelling was only an excuse to take the children instead of real cause mandated by law.

Being there was NO true exigent circumstances, the caseworker would need a warrant or court order to take the children. If she had persuded a court for a court order or warrant, It would have been based on lies and ommissions as the original petition to the court was.

As the United States Supreme Court has explained: “In terms that apply equally to seizures of property and to seizures of persons, the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.” ( Payton v. New York (1980) 445 U.S. 573, 590 [100 S.Ct. 1371, 1382, 63 L.Ed.2d 639].)

A due-process violation occurs when a state-required breakup of a natural family is founded solely on a “best interests” analysis that is not supported by the requisite proof of parental unfitness. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, (1978)

The CW has never presented to this court any evidence that was explicitly documented that showed any reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal of two boys that were playing behind their father legs and one infant sleeping in its bed. Just using one of Oregons 16 safety threats title as a reason to take a child and not backing it up with evidence does not fulfill the letter of the law.

Judicial determinations that remaining in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the child and that reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal and to finalize the permanency plan in effect, as well as judicial determinations that reasonable efforts are not required, must be explicitly documented, made on a case-by-case basis, and stated in the court order. A transcript of the court proceeding is the only other documentation that will be accepted to verify that these determinations have been made. Affidavits, nunc pro tunc orders, and references to state law are not acceptable. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(d). The court, after hearing the evidence, must be satisfied that reasonable efforts . . . have been made. Review and approval of the [state] agency’s report and recommendation alone are not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Act; the court must make a determination that the agency’s efforts were, in the judgment of the court, reasonable for preventing placement. With regard to emergency situations, if the agency’s judgment was that services could not have prevented removal of the child, the court at the time of the adjudicatory hearing must find that the lack of preventive efforts was reasonable.

CPS was never required by the court to provide specific and detailed documentation to prove that Reasonable Efforts were in fact made. 42 C.F.R. Section 1356.21(d) requires documentation of judicial determinations concerning both reasonable efforts and contrary to the welfare findings. They are to be explicitly documented on a case by case basis and so stated in the court order. Facts substantiating the legal conclusion must be stated in the order. Lack of compliance results in denial of federal funds for the child’s foster placement.

According to OAR 413-040-0013

Every 30 days the Ongoing Safety Plan is to be reviewed and updated to be current. Any previously identified Safety Threats that have been reduced or eliminated will be shown to be so.

The caseworker, Stacie Navarro, has never done this.

According to OAR 413-040-0013

Every 30 days there is to be a face-to-face review with parent on progress toward achieving the current Conditions For Return and Expected Outcomes.

This has never been done by the caseworker.

According to OAR 413-040-0016 and OAR 413-040-0010

Every 90 days (or any time within the 90 days) there is to be a full face-to-face current Case Plan review with the parent. This would include reviewing and updating the Ongoing Safety Plan, Action Agreement, Expected Outcomes, and Conditions For Return.

The fact is, after the first separate Action Agreements were signed back in 3/10/16 by both parents, the caseworker has NEVER visited our home or updated anything thru a face-to-face with either parent. To date over 6 months have passed by.

This means that the caseworker has committed malfeasance 28 times (14 times with each parent.)

In fact, the caseworker STILL to this date has not talked to the parents specifically about the conditions for return, expected outcomes, nor has she talked to the parents personally about a case plan where everything is updated. She also has not updated any visitation plan with them. They have never seen any visitation plan other than the original one made at intake almost 6 months ago. In fact, the visitation plan dated 3/2/16 submitted to court in the case file was not even signed by the caseworker or the parents.

And because of the CW’s lack of mandated monthly updates, this means that the caseworker presented false information in the CRB on 7/7/16 and the Oregon Family Decision Meeting on 9/15/16. This also means that the CW passed on false information to the caseworker’s supervisor. This also means that false information was presented to Dr. Basham for the Psych Evaluations by stateing that the parents were in a violent relationship.

And because of the caseworker, Stacie Navarro, not doing her mandated obligations of updating anything, she has thus given false testimony to this court at every hearing so far.

The CW lack of updating the case causes the court to not know the truth. This is basicly a lie of ommission. A lie of omission is to remain silent when ethical behavior calls for one to speak up. A lie of omission is a method of deception and duplicity that uses the technique of simply remaining silent when speaking the truth would significantly alter the other person’s (the judge’s) capacity to make an informed decision.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said it best, “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 in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents.Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999).

We are therefore establishing ON THE RECORD that we strongly challenge that any lawfull reason existed to remove our children.

Therefore, we strongly challenge this courts jurisiction over this matter.

We withdraw and rescind any and all signatures to “voluntary” safety and service plans or any other “agreements”. Such signatures were obtained through duress, threat, and coercion. We now explicitly withdraw any consents we gave.

We withdraw any plea of guilt that we were coerced and tricked into signing.

I am petitioning the court to dismiss jurisdiction, close the case, and order that the children are returned home immediately.

I hereby declare that the above statements are true and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand they are made for use as evidence in court and I am subject to penalty for perjury.

DATED this day of ___________, 20____ .

Petitioner (signature) _________________________________________

Print Name _________________________________________________

Address or Contact Address ____________________________________

City, State, Zip Code __________________________________________

Telephone or Contact Telephone ________________________________

STATE OF OREGON           )

)     ss.

County of Lane )

SIGNED AND SWORN to before me on this ______ day of ______________, 2016.

_____________________

SEAL

Attorney’s signature______________________________________________

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LANE COUNTY

JUVENILE DEPARTMENT

In the matter of

Haiden Tipaloo

Jaiden Tipaloo

Kaiden Tipaloo

Minor Children,

Court Numbers: 16JU00258

16JU00325

16JU00765

MOTION TO DISMISS DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICTION

Based upon the Motion to Dismiss filed by the plaintiff , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED these cases be dismissed

___ resolving and disposing of all remaining issues and parties (general)

___ disposing of defendant (s) _______________________________________________________ (limited) and it is further ordered this case is dismissed

___ with prejudice

___ without prejudice

DATE: ___________________

______________________________________________

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

Ohio

 

Child Witnesses to Domestic Violence

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (426 KB) of this publication.

Current Through April 2016

Circumstances That Constitute Witnessing

In criminal law: An offense is ‘committed in the vicinity of a child’ if the offender commits the offense within 30 feet of or within the same residential unit as a child who is under age 18, regardless of whether the offender knows the age of the child or that the offense is being committed within 30 feet of or within the same residential unit as the child and regardless of whether the child actually views the commission of the offense.

Consequences

If the offense of domestic violence or assault involves a person who was a family or household member at the time of the violation, and the offender committed the offense in the vicinity of one or more children who are not victims of the offense, and the offender or the victim of the offense is a parent, guardian, custodian, or person in loco parentis of one or more of those children:

  • The sentencing court shall consider the offender’s conduct to be more serious than conduct normally constituting the offense.
  • The offender also shall be required to obtain counseling.

 

Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (587 KB) of this publication.

Current Through February 2016

Physical Abuse

‘Abused child’ includes any child who:

  • Is endangered as defined § 2919.22
  • Exhibits evidence of any physical or mental injury or death, inflicted by other than accidental means, that is inconsistent with the history given of it
  • Suffers physical or mental injury that harms or threatens to harm the child’s health or welfare because of the acts of his or her parent, guardian, or custodian
  • Is subjected to out-of-home-care child abuse

‘Endangering children’ includes any of the following acts committed against a child under age 18 or a mentally or physically handicapped child under age 21:

  • Abuse, torture, or cruel abuse
  • Corporal punishment, other physical disciplinary measure, or physical restraint in a cruel manner or for a prolonged period that creates a substantial risk of serious physical harm to the child
  • Repeated and unwarranted disciplinary measures that, if continued, create a substantial risk of serious impairment of the child’s mental health or development
  • Allowing the child to be on the same parcel of real property and within 100 feet of, or, in the case of more than one housing unit on the same parcel of real property, in the same housing unit and within 100 feet of, the illegal manufacture of drugs, cultivation of marijuana, or possession of chemicals for the illegal manufacture, when the person knows that the act is occurring, whether or not any person is prosecuted for or convicted of the violation
Neglect

‘Neglected child’ includes any child:

  • Who lacks proper parental care because of the faults or habits of the child’s parents, guardian, or custodian
  • Whose parents, guardian, or custodian neglects the child or refuses to provide proper or necessary subsistence, education, medical or surgical care or treatment, or other care necessary for the child’s health, morals, or well-being
  • Whose parents, guardian, or custodian neglects the child or refuses to provide the special care made necessary by the child’s mental condition
  • Whose parents, legal guardian, or custodian have placed or attempted to place the child in violation of statutes regarding the placement and adoption of children
  • Who, because of the omission of the child’s parents, guardian, or custodian, suffers physical or mental injury that harms or threatens to harm the child’s health or welfare
  • Who is subjected to child neglect in out-of-home care
Sexual Abuse/Exploitation

The term ‘abused child’ includes a child who is the victim of sexual activity when such activity would constitute an offense, except that the court need not find that any person has been convicted of the offense in order to find that the child is an abused child. Sexual activity means sexual conduct or sexual contact or both.

‘Sexual conduct’ means vaginal intercourse between a male and female; anal intercourse, fellatio, and cunnilingus between persons regardless of sex; and, without privilege to do so, the insertion, however slight, of any part of the body of any instrument, apparatus, or other object into the vaginal or anal opening of another. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete vaginal or anal intercourse.

‘Sexual contact’ means any touching of an erogenous zone of another, including without limitation, the thigh, genitals, buttocks, pubic region, and if the person is a female, a breast, for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying either person.

A person commits the crime of ‘endangering children’ when the person does any of the following to a child: Entice, coerce, permit, encourage, compel, hire, employ, use, or allow the child to act, model, or in any other way participate in, or be photographed for, the production, presentation, dissemination, or advertisement of any material or performance that the offender knows or reasonably should know is obscene, sexually oriented, or nudity-oriented matter.

Emotional Abuse

‘Mental injury’ means any behavioral, cognitive, emotional, or mental disorder in a child caused by an act or omission that is described in § 2919.22 and is committed by a parent or other person who is responsible for the child’s care.

Abandonment

Citation: Rev. Stat. §§ 2151.03(A); 2151.011
The term ‘neglected child’ includes a child who is abandoned by his or her parents, guardian, or custodian.

A child shall be presumed abandoned when his or her parents have failed to visit or maintain contact with him or her for more than 90 days, regardless of whether the parents resume contact with the child after that period of 90 days.

Standards for Reporting

Citation: Rev. Stat. § 2151.421
A report is required when a mandatory reporter acting in an official or professional capacity knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect based on facts that would cause a reasonable person in a similar position to suspect, that a child younger than age 18 or a mentally retarded, developmentally disabled, or physically impaired child younger than age 21 has suffered or faces a threat of suffering any physical or mental wound, injury, disability, or condition of a nature that reasonably indicates abuse or neglect of the child.

Persons Responsible for the Child

Responsible persons include:

  • The child’s parents, guardian, or custodian
  • Other persons responsible for the child’s care
Exceptions

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as subjecting a parent to criminal liability when, solely in the practice of religious beliefs, the parent fails to provide adequate medical or surgical care or treatment for the child. This section:

  • Does not abrogate or limit any person’s responsibility to report child abuse or neglect that is known or reasonably suspected or believed to have occurred, and to report children who are known to face or are reasonably suspected or believed to be facing a threat of suffering abuse or neglect
  • Does not preclude any exercise of the authority of the State, any political subdivision, or any court to ensure that medical or surgical care or treatment is provided to a child when the child’s health requires it

A child exhibiting evidence of corporal punishment or other physical disciplinary measure by a parent is not an abused child if the measure is not prohibited under § 2919.22 [that prohibits cruel or excessive means of discipline].

 

Definitions of Domestic Violence

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (533 KB) of this publication.

Current Through August 2013

Defined in Domestic Violence Civil Laws

‘Domestic violence’ means the occurrence of one or more of the following acts against a family or household member:

  • Attempting to cause or recklessly causing bodily injury
  • Placing another person by the threat of force in fear of imminent serious physical harm or committing a violation of § 2903.211 (menacing by stalking) or 2911.211 (aggravated trespass)
  • Committing any act with respect to a child that would result in the child being an abused child, as defined in § 2151.031
  • Committing a sexually oriented offense
Defined in Child Abuse Reporting and Child Protection Laws

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Defined in Criminal Laws

No person shall:

  • Knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to a family or household member
  • Recklessly cause serious physical harm to a family or household member
  • Knowingly, by threat of force, cause a family or household member to believe that the offender will cause imminent physical harm to the family or household member

Whoever violates this section is guilty of domestic violence.

Persons Included in the Definition

‘Family or household member’ means any of the following:

  • Any of the following who is residing with or has resided with the respondent:
    • A spouse, a person living as a spouse, or a former spouse of the respondent
    • A parent, a foster parent, or a child of the respondent, or another person related by consanguinity or affinity to the respondent
    • A parent or a child of a spouse, person living as a spouse, or former spouse of the respondent, or another person related by consanguinity or affinity to a spouse, person living as a spouse, or former spouse of the respondent
  • The natural parent of any child of whom the respondent is the other natural parent or is the putative other natural parent

‘Person living as a spouse’ means a person who is living or has lived with the respondent in a common law marital relationship, who otherwise is cohabiting with the respondent, or who otherwise has cohabited with the respondent within 5 years prior to the date of the alleged occurrence of the act in question.

 

Disclosure of Confidential Child Abuse and Neglect Records

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (651 KB) of this publication.

Current Through June 2013

Confidentiality of Records

Except as provided below, a report made under this section is confidential. The information provided in a report and the name of the person who made the report shall not be released for use and shall not be used as evidence in any civil action or proceeding brought against the person who made the report.

Persons or Entities Allowed Access to Records

In a criminal proceeding, the report is admissible as evidence in accordance with the Rules of Evidence and is subject to discovery in accordance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

If the child who is the subject of the report dies for any reason at any time after the report is made but before the child reaches age 18, the public children services agency or municipal or county peace officer to which the report was made or referred, on the request of the child fatality review board, shall submit a summary of the report to the review board of the county in which the deceased child resided at the time of death. On the request of the review board, the agency or peace officer may, at its discretion, make the report available to the review board.

A mandated reporter may make a reasonable number of requests of the public children services agency that receives or is referred the report, or of the children’s advocacy center that is referred the report if the report is referred to a children’s advocacy center, to be provided with the following information:

  • Whether the agency or center has initiated an investigation of the report
  • Whether the agency or center is continuing to investigate the report
  • Whether the agency or center is otherwise involved with the child who is the subject of the report
  • The general status of the health and safety of the child who is the subject of the report
  • Whether the report has resulted in the filing of a complaint in juvenile court or of criminal charges in another court

A public children services agency shall disclose confidential information discovered during an investigation of child abuse or neglect to any Federal, State, or local government entity that needs the information to carry out its responsibilities to protect children from abuse or neglect.

When Public Disclosure of Records is Allowed

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Use of Records for Employment Screening

his issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

 

Immunity for Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (481 KB) of this publication.

Current Through March 2015

Except as provided in the law regarding false reports, anyone or any hospital, institution, school, health department, or agency participating in the making of reports under § 2151.421(A); anyone or any hospital, institution, school, health department, or agency participating in good faith in making reports under § 2151.421(B); and anyone participating in good faith in a judicial proceeding resulting from the reports shall be immune from any civil or criminal liability for injury, death, or loss to person or property that otherwise might be incurred or imposed as a result of making the reports or the participating in the judicial proceeding.

In any civil or criminal action or proceeding in which it is alleged and proved that participation in making a report under this section was not in good faith, or that participation in a judicial proceeding resulting from a report made under this section was not in good faith, the court shall award the prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. If a civil action or proceeding is voluntarily dismissed, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the party against whom the civil action or proceeding is brought.

 

Making and Screening Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (849 KB) of this publication.

Current Through February 2013

Individual Responsibility to Report

A mandated reporter who knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that a child has suffered or faces a threat of suffering abuse or neglect shall immediately make a report to the county public children services agency (PCSA) or a peace officer in the county in which the child resides or the abuse or neglect occurred.

The report shall be made either by telephone or in person and shall be followed by a written report, if requested by the receiving agency or officer.

Content of Reports

The written report shall contain:

  • The names and addresses of the child and the child’s parents or persons having custody
  • The child’s age
  • The nature and extent of any injuries, abuse, or neglect, including any evidence of prior injuries, abuse, or neglect
  • Any other information that might be helpful in establishing the cause of the injury, abuse, or neglect that is known or reasonably suspected or believed to have occurred or of the threat of injury, abuse, or neglect that is known or reasonably suspected or believed to exist
Reporting Suspicious Deaths

If a report has been made, and if for any reason the child dies before reaching age 18, the PCSA or peace officer to which the report was made or referred shall, upon request of the Child Fatality Review Board, submit a summary of the report to the Child Fatality Review Board.

Reporting Substance-Exposed Infants

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Agency Receiving the Reports

The person making the report shall make it to the PCSA or a municipal or county peace officer in the county in which the child resides or the county in which the abuse or neglect is occurring or has occurred.

Initial Screening Decisions

The differential response approach shall include two response pathways: the traditional response pathway and the alternative response pathway. The agency shall use the traditional response for the following types of accepted reports:

  • Physical abuse resulting in serious injury or that creates a serious and immediate risk to a child’s health and safety
  • Sexual abuse
  • Child fatality
  • Reports requiring a specialized assessment
  • Reports requiring a third party investigative procedure

For all other child abuse and neglect reports, an alternative response shall be the preferred response, whenever appropriate and in accordance with rules adopted by the department.

Agency Conducting the Assessment/Investigation

The PCSA shall investigate, within 24 hours, each report of child abuse or child neglect. The investigation shall be made in cooperation with the law enforcement agency.

Assessment/Investigation Procedures

The PCSA shall investigate, within 24 hours, each report of child abuse or child neglect to determine the circumstances surrounding the injuries, abuse, or neglect or the threat of injury, abuse, or neglect, the cause of the injuries, abuse, neglect, or threat, and the person or persons responsible.

A representative of the agency shall, at the time of initial contact with the person subject to the investigation, inform the person of the specific complaints or allegations made against the person.

As used in this section, ‘investigation’ means the PCSA’s response to an accepted report of child abuse or neglect through either an alternative response or a traditional response.

In regulation: The agency shall assign the following types of reports of child abuse or neglect to the traditional response pathway:

  • Reports containing allegations that could result in charges of felony child endangering or criminal sexual conduct
  • Reports containing allegations of the sexual abuse of a child
  • Reports containing allegations that could result in charges of homicide
  • Reports requiring a specialized assessment
  • Reports requiring a third party investigative procedure
  • Reports containing allegations regarding a suspicious child fatality

Other cases may be assigned to the alternative response pathway. For those cases, the agency shall conduct an assessment.

Timeframes for Completing Investigations

The agency shall initiate the screened in child abuse and/or neglect report in accordance with the following:

  • For an emergency report, an attempt at a face-to-face contact with the alleged child victim shall be made within 1 hour from the time the referral was screened in to assess child safety and interview the alleged child victim.
  • For all other reports, an attempt at a face-to-face or telephone contact shall be made within 24 hours from the time the referral was screened in with a principal of the report or collateral source who has knowledge of the alleged child victim’s current condition and can provide current information about the child’s safety
  • If face-to-face contact with the alleged child victim was not attempted within the 24 hour timeframe, an attempt of face-to-face contact with the alleged child victim shall be made within 72 hours from the time the report was screened in.

The agency shall complete the report and arrive at a final case disposition no later than 30 days from the date the report was screened in. The agency may extend the timeframe by a maximum of 15 days if information needed to determine the report disposition and final case decision cannot be obtained within 30 days and the reasons are documented in the case record.

Classification of Reports

This issue is not addressed in the statutes and regulations reviewed.

 

Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (763 KB) of this publication.

Current Through August 2015

Professionals Required to Report

Mandatory reporters include:

  • Attorneys
  • Physicians, interns, residents, dentists, podiatrists, nurses, or other health-care professionals
  • Licensed psychologists, school psychologists, or marriage and family therapists
  • Speech pathologists or audiologists
  • Coroners
  • Administrators or employees of child daycare centers, residential camps, child day camps, certified child care agencies, other public or private children services, or private, nonprofit therapeutic wilderness camps agencies
  • Teachers, school employees, or school authorities
  • Persons engaged in social work or the practice of professional counseling
  • Agents of county humane societies
  • Persons, other than clerics, rendering spiritual treatment through prayer in accordance with the tenets of a well-recognized religion
  • Professional employees of a county Department of Job and Family Services who works with children and families
  • Superintendents or regional administrators employed by the Department of Youth Services
  • Superintendents, board members, or employees of county boards of developmental disabilities; investigative agents contracted with by a county board of developmental disabilities; employees of the Department of Developmental Disabilities; employees of a facility or home that provides respite care; employees of a home health agency; employees of an entity that provides homemaker services
  • Persons performing the duties of an assessor or third party employed by a public children’s services agency to assist in providing child- or family-related services
  • Court-appointed special advocates or guardians ad litem
Reporting by Other Persons

Any other person who suspects that a child has suffered or faces a threat of suffering from abuse or neglect may report.

Institutional Responsibility to Report

Not addressed in statutes reviewed.

Standards for Making a Report

A report is required when a mandated person is acting in an official or professional capacity and knows or suspects that a child has suffered or faces a threat of suffering any physical or mental wound, injury, disability, or condition of a nature that reasonably indicates abuse or neglect of the child.

Privileged Communications

An attorney, physician, or cleric is not required to make a report concerning any communication the attorney, physician, or cleric receives from a client, patient, or penitent in a professional relationship, if, in accordance with § 2317.02, the attorney, physician, or cleric could not testify with respect to that communication in a civil or criminal proceeding.

The client, patient, or penitent in the relationship is deemed to have waived any testimonial privilege with respect to any communication the attorney, physician, or cleric receives, and the attorney, physician, or cleric shall make a report with respect to that communication if all of the following apply:

  • The client, patient, or penitent, at the time of the communication, is either a child under age 18 or a mentally retarded, developmentally disabled, or physically impaired person under age 21.
  • The attorney, physician, or cleric knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect based on facts that would cause a reasonable person in similar position to suspect, as a result of the communication or any observations made during that communication, that the client, patient, or penitent has suffered or faces a threat of suffering any physical or mental wound, injury, disability, or condition of a nature that reasonably indicates abuse or neglect of the person.
  • The abuse or neglect does not arise out of the person’s attempt to have an abortion without the notification of her parents, guardian, or custodian in accordance with § 2151.85.
Inclusion of Reporter’s Name in Report

The reporter is not required to provide his or her name in the report, but if he or she wants to receive information on the outcome of the investigation, he or she must provide his or her name, address, and telephone number to the person who receives the report.

Disclosure of Reporter Identity

The information provided in a report made pursuant to this section and the name of the person who made the report shall not be released for use and shall not be used as evidence in any civil action or proceeding brought against the person who made the report.

 

Parental Drug Use as Child Abuse

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (554 KB) of this publication.

Current Through April 2015

No person shall allow the child to be on the same parcel of real property and within 100 feet of, or, in the case of more than one housing unit on the same parcel of real property, in the same housing unit and within 100 feet of the unit, of any act in violation of § 2925.04 [prohibiting the cultivation of marijuana or the manufacture of a controlled substance] or § 2925.041 [prohibiting the possession of any of the chemicals used in the manufacture of a controlled substance] when the person knows that the act is occurring, whether or not any person is prosecuted or convicted of the violation that is the basis of the violation of this section.

If the drug involved [in an offense described above] is methamphetamine, the court shall impose a mandatory prison term on the offender as follows:

  • If the violation is third degree felony, there shall be a mandatory prison term that is not less than 2 years.
  • If the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a third degree felony, there shall be a mandatory prison term that is not less than 5 years.
  • If the violation is a second degree felony, there shall be a mandatory prison term that is not less than 3 years.
  • If the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a second degree felony, there shall be a mandatory prison term that is not less than 5 years.

 

Representation of Children in Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (806 KB) of this publication.

Current Through August 2014

Making The Appointment

The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem (GAL), subject to rules adopted by the supreme court, to protect the interests of a child in any proceeding concerning an alleged abused or neglected child. The GAL shall not be the attorney responsible for presenting the evidence alleging that the child is an abused or neglected child and shall not be an employee of any party in the proceeding.

The court shall appoint a GAL to protect the interests of a child in any proceeding concerning an alleged dependent child if any of the following applies:

  • The parent of the child appears to be mentally incompetent or is under age 18.
  • There is a conflict of interest between the child and the child’s parents, guardian, or custodian.
  • The court believes that the parent of the child is not capable of representing the best interests of the child. The court may appoint a GAL to protect the interests of the child in any other proceeding concerning an alleged dependent child.

In court rules: Each court appointing a GAL under this rule shall enter an Order of Appointment that shall include:

  • A statement regarding whether a person is being appointed as a GAL only or as a GAL and attorney for the child.
  • A statement that the appointment shall remain in effect until discharged by order of the court, by the court filing a final order in the case, or by court rule.
  • A statement that the GAL shall be given notice of all hearings and proceedings and shall be provided a copy of all pleadings, motions, notices and other documents filed in the case.

Whenever feasible, the same GAL shall be reappointed for a specific child in any subsequent case in any court relating to the best interests of the child.

The Use of Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs)

When the court appoints a GAL, it shall appoint a qualified volunteer or court-appointed special advocate (CASA) whenever one is available and the appointment is appropriate. Upon request, the Department of Job and Family Services shall provide for the training of volunteer GALs.

Qualifications/Training

In order to serve as a GAL, an applicant shall, at a minimum, successfully complete a preservice training course to qualify for appointment and thereafter, successfully complete continuing education training in each succeeding calendar year to qualify for continued appointment. The preservice training course must be the 6 hour GAL preservice course provided by the Supreme Court of Ohio, the Ohio CASA/GAL Association’s preservice training program, or with prior approval of the appointing court, be a course at least 6 hours in length that covers the topic areas listed below.

To meet the requirements of this rule, the preservice course shall include training on all the following topics:

  • Human needs and child development
  • Communication and diversity, including communication skills with children and adults, interviewing skills, methods of critical questioning, use of open-ended questions, understanding the perspective of the child, sensitivity, building trust, multicultural awareness, and confidentiality
  • Preventing child abuse and neglect, including assessing risk and safety
  • Family and child issues, including family dynamics, substance abuse and its effects, basic psychopathology for adults and children, and domestic violence and its effects
  • Legal framework, including records checks; accessing, assessing, and appropriate protocol; a GAL’s role in court; local resources and service practice; report content; and mediation and other types of dispute resolution

The continuing education course must be at least 3 hours in length and be provided by the Supreme Court of Ohio, by the Ohio CASA/GAL Association, or with prior approval of the appointing court, be a training that complies with requirements of this rule. The 3-hour continuing education course shall be specifically designed for continuing education. If a GAL fails to complete a 3-hour continuing education course within any calendar year, that person shall not be eligible to serve as a GAL until this continuing education requirement is satisfied. If the person’s gap in continuing education is 3 calendar years or less, the person shall qualify to serve after completing a 3-hour continuing education course. If the gap in continuing education is more than 3 calendar years, that person must complete a 6-hour preservice education course to qualify to serve.

Specific Duties

The GAL for a dependent child shall perform whatever functions are necessary to protect the best interests of the child, including, but not limited to, investigation, mediation, monitoring court proceedings, and monitoring the services provided the child by the public or private children services agency that has temporary or permanent custody of the child, and shall file any motions and other court papers that are in the best interests of the child in accordance with rules adopted by the supreme court.

In court rules: A GAL shall perform, at a minimum, the responsibilities stated below, unless impracticable or inadvisable to do so:

  • Represent the best interests of the child for whom he or she is appointed
  • Maintain independence, objectivity, and fairness, as well as the appearance of fairness, in all dealings
  • Appear and participate in any hearing
  • File pleadings, motions, and other documents
  • Make reasonable efforts to become informed about the facts of the case by doing the following tasks:
    • Meet with and interview the child and observe the child with each parent, foster parent, guardian, or physical custodian
    • Conduct at least one interview with the child where none of the above individuals is present
    • Visit the child at his or her residence
    • Ascertain the wishes of the child
    • Meet with and interview the parties, foster parents, and other significant individuals who may have relevant knowledge about the case
    • Review pleadings and other relevant court documents
    • Review criminal, civil, educational, and administrative records pertaining to the child and the child’s family
    • Interview school personnel, medical and mental health providers, child protective services workers, and relevant court personnel and obtain copies of relevant records
    • Recommend that the court order psychological evaluations, mental health and/or substance abuse assessments, or other evaluations or tests of the parties as the GAL deems necessary or helpful to the court
    • Perform any other investigation necessary to make an informed recommendation regarding the best interests of the child

A nonattorney GAL must avoid engaging in conduct that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law, be vigilant in performing the GAL’s duties, and request that the court appoint legal counsel, or otherwise employ the services of an attorney, to undertake appropriate legal actions on behalf of the GAL in the case.

When a court appoints an attorney to serve as both the GAL and attorney for a child, the attorney shall advocate for the child’s best interests and the child’s wishes in accord with the Rules of Professional Conduct. When a GAL determines that a conflict exists between the child’s best interests and the child’s wishes, the GAL shall, at the earliest practical time, request in writing that the court promptly resolve the conflict by entering appropriate orders.

How the Representative Is Compensated

The court may fix the compensation for the service of the GAL, which shall be paid from the treasury of the county, subject to rules adopted by the Supreme Court.

 

Case Planning for Families Involved With Child Welfare Agencies

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (811 KB) of this publication.

Current Through April 2014

When Case Plans Are Required

Each public children services agency and private child-placing agency shall prepare and maintain a case plan for any child to whom the agency is providing services and to whom any of the following applies:

  • The agency filed a complaint alleging that the child is an abused, neglected, or dependent child.
  • The agency has temporary or permanent custody of the child.
  • The child is living at home subject to an order for protective supervision.
  • The child is in a planned permanent living arrangement.

Each public children services agency shall prepare and maintain a case plan or a family service plan for any child for whom the agency is providing in-home services pursuant to an alternative response.

The case plan must be filed with the court prior to the child’s adjudicatory hearing, but no later than 30 days after the earlier of the dates on which the complaint in the case was filed or the child was first placed into shelter care.

All parts of the case plan shall be completed by the earlier of 30 days after the adjudicatory hearing or the date of the dispositional hearing for the child.

Who May Participate in the Case Planning Process

Any agency that is required to prepare a case plan shall attempt to obtain an agreement among all parties, including, but not limited to, the parents, guardian, or custodian of the child, and the guardian ad litem of the child regarding the content of the case plan.

Contents of a Case Plan

For a child who is in his or her own home or an out-of-home care placement, the case plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following elements:

  • The parties involved in the case plan and their individual responsibilities
  • A statement of the goals and objectives to be achieved and the conditions in the home that must be improved to ensure the child will be safe and will receive proper care
  • Anticipated timeframes for attainment of the goals and objectives
  • Identification of services requested by, or that have been or will be offered or provided to, the child or his or her parent, guardian, or custodian to achieve the identified goals
  • A discussion of the appropriateness of supportive services that will be or have been offered and provided under the court order for protective supervision to prevent removal of the child from his or her home
  • Specification of case management, casework services, and/or if appropriate, therapeutic counseling

For each child placed in out-of-home care, the case plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following elements:

  • Identification of the type of out-of-home care placement
  • An explanation of the appropriateness and safety of the placement
  • A statement of the reasonable efforts that were made or will be made to make it possible for the child to return to his or her home or a statement that reasonable efforts are not required
  • An explanation of the steps to be taken to ensure services are provided to the child and his or her parent, guardian, or custodian to do one of the following:
    • Facilitate the return of the child to his or her parent, guardian, or custodian
    • Locate a safe, planned permanent living arrangement for the child
  • An explanation of the steps to be taken to ensure services are provided to the child and substitute caregiver to address the needs of the child while the child is in placement
  • A schedule for regular and frequent visitation, including an explanation of the reason for any restrictions on location of visits or the need for supervision of visits, between the child and his or her parent, guardian, or custodian for children in temporary custody
  • If the case plan goal is adoption or another planned permanent living arrangement, a discussion of the steps the agency is taking to do one of the following:
    • Place the child with an adult relative who expresses an interest in adopting the child and meets all relevant State child protection standards
    • Find an adoptive family for the child through child-specific recruitment efforts
    • Identify a planned permanent living arrangement for the child
    • Finalize the adoption or guardianship
  • A discussion of why parental rights shall not be terminated
  • For a child age 16 or older, identification of the programs and services to assist the child to prepare for transition to independent living, if appropriate

 

Concurrent Planning for Permanency for Children

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (295 KB) of this publication.

Current Through November 2012

The public children’s services agency may develop a supplemental plan for locating a permanent family placement for a child concurrently with reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify families. The supplemental plan shall not be considered a part of the case plan. Any supplemental plan shall be discussed and reviewed with the parent, guardian, or custodian. The supplemental plan does not require agreement or approval by the parties.

A case plan [for a child and family receiving services] may include, as a supplement, a plan for locating a permanent family placement. The supplement shall not be considered part of the case plan.

 

Court Hearings for the Permanent Placement of Children

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (772 KB) of this publication.

Current Through January 2016

Schedule of Hearings

Any court that issues a dispositional order may review at any time the child’s placement or custody arrangement, the child’s case plan, the actions of the public children’s services agency or private child-placing agency in implementing that case plan, the child’s permanency plan if the child’s permanency plan has been approved, and any other aspects of the child’s placement or custody arrangement.

The court shall hold a review hearing:

  • No later than 1 year after the child was first placed in care and every 12 months thereafter
  • Within 30 days of a finding that reasonable efforts to return the child home are no longer required

In regulation: Each public children services agency shall review the case plan no later than every 90 days from whichever of the following activities occurs first:

  • The original agency court complaint date
  • The date the agency received custody of the child
  • The date of court-ordered protective supervision
  • The date the parent, guardian, or custodian signed the case plan for in-home supportive services only
Persons Entitled to Attend Hearings

The court shall give notice of every hearing to:

  • Appropriate agency employees
  • The child’s parents
  • Any person who had guardianship or legal custody of the child
  • The guardian ad litem
  • The child
Determinations Made at Hearings

At the court hearing, the court shall determine:

  • The appropriateness of any agency actions
  • The safety and appropriateness of continuing the child’s placement or custody arrangement
  • The extent of compliance with the child’s case plan
  • The extent of progress that has been made toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating the child’s placement in foster care
  • Whether any changes should be made to the child’s permanency plan or placement
  • A likely date by which the child may be safely returned home or placed for adoption or legal custody
  • If an administrative review has been conducted, whether the conclusions of the review are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and approve or modify the case plan based upon that evidence
  • When approving a permanency plan, whether the agency required to develop the plan has made reasonable efforts to finalize it

If the court finds the agency has not made reasonable efforts to finalize the plan, the court shall require the agency to use reasonable efforts to do the following:

  • Place the child in a timely manner into a permanent placement
  • Complete whatever steps are necessary to finalize the permanent placement of the child

In making reasonable efforts, the agency shall consider the child’s health and safety as the paramount concern.

In regulation: The purpose of the case review is to ensure continued efforts are made to:

  • Assess child safety
  • Evaluate whether risk to the child is lowered or increased
  • Evaluate the effectiveness of supportive services offered and provided to the child; his or her parent, guardian, custodian, or preadoptive parent; or substitute caregiver
  • Identify barriers to the provision of services
  • Prevent placement, if possible, of the child in substitute care, assist in reunifying the child with the child’s parent, or establish a permanent placement for the child
Permanency Options

Permanency options include:

  • Return home
  • Adoption
  • Legal custody
  • Another planned permanent living arrangement

 

Determining the Best Interests of the Child

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (397 KB) of this publication.

Current Through March 2016

In determining the best interests of a child at a hearing, the court shall consider all relevant factors including, but not limited to, the following:

  • The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child’s parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers, and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child
  • The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through the child’s guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child
  • The custodial history of the child, including whether the child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children’s services agencies or private child-placing agencies for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period ending on or after March 18, 1999
  • The child’s need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency
  • Whether any of the factors in § 2151.414(E)(7)-(11) apply in relation to the parents and child

 

Grounds for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (652 KB) of this publication.

Current Through January 2013

Circumstances That Are Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights

A court may terminate parental rights if it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interests of the child and that any of the following apply:

  • The child is abandoned.
  • The child is orphaned, and there are no relatives of the child who are able to take permanent custody.
  • The child has been in out-of-home care for 12 months or more of a consecutive 22-month period, and the child cannot be placed with either of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child’s parents.
  • The parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child’s home.
  • Chronic mental illness, emotional illness, mental retardation, physical disability, or chemical dependency makes the parent unable to provide an adequate permanent home for the child.
  • The parent committed abuse against the child or caused or allowed the child to suffer neglect.
  • The parent has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the child by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with the child when able to do so.
  • The parent has been convicted of an offense against the person, including endangering children, sexual assault, prostitution, aggravated menacing, domestic violence, and kidnapping, and the child or a sibling of the child was a victim of the offense, or the parent has been convicted of involuntary manslaughter, a sibling of the child was the victim of the offense, and the parent who committed the offense poses an ongoing danger to the child or a sibling of the child.
  • The parent is incarcerated for an offense committed against the child or a sibling of the child.
  • The parent has been convicted of one of the following:
    • Murder or voluntary manslaughter, and the victim was a sibling of the child or another child in the parent’s household
    • Assault, and the victim is the child, a sibling of the child, or another child in the parent’s household
    • Endangering children, and the child, a sibling of the child, or another child in the parent’s household is the victim
    • Rape, sexual battery, or other sexual offense, and the victim is the child, a sibling of the child, or another child in the parent’s household
    • A conspiracy or attempt to commit, or complicity in committing, murder, manslaughter, or sexual offense
  • The parent has repeatedly withheld medical treatment or food from the child when the parent has the means to provide the treatment or food.
  • The parent has placed the child at substantial risk of harm two or more times due to alcohol or drug abuse and has rejected treatment two or more times.
  • The parent has abandoned the child.
  • The parent has had parental rights involuntarily terminated with respect to a sibling of the child, and the parent has failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to prove that he or she can provide a secure home for the child.
  • The parent is incarcerated and will not be available to care for the child for at least 18 months.
  • The parent is repeatedly incarcerated, and the repeated incarceration prevents the parent from providing care for the child.
  • The parent for any reason is unwilling to provide food, clothing, shelter, and other basic necessities for the child or to prevent the child from suffering abuse or neglect.
Circumstances That Are Exceptions to Termination of Parental Rights

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Circumstances Allowing Reinstatement of Parental Rights

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

 

Kinship Guardianship as a Permanency Option

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (1337 KB) of this publication.

Current Through December 2014

Definitions

‘Custodian’ means an individual who has legal custody, as defined below, of a minor child.

‘Guardian’ means an individual that is granted authority by a probate court to exercise parental rights over a minor child to the extent provided in the court’s order and subject to residual parental rights of the child’s parents.

‘Specified relative’ means the following individuals who are age 18 or older:

  • The following individuals related by blood or adoption:
    • Grandparents, including grandparents with the prefix ‘great,’ ‘great-great,’ or ‘great-great-great’
    • Siblings
    • Aunts, uncles, nephews, and nieces, including such relatives with the prefix ‘great,’ ‘great-great,’ ‘grand,’ or ‘great-grand’
    • First cousins and first cousins once removed
  • Stepparents and stepsiblings
  • Spouses and former spouses of individuals named above

‘Legal custody’ means a legal status that vests in the custodian the right to have physical care and control of the child and to assume the responsibilities listed below.

The term ‘residual parental rights, privileges, and responsibilities’ means those rights, privileges, and responsibilities remaining with the natural parent after the transfer of legal custody of the child, including, but not necessarily limited to, the privilege of reasonable visitation, consent to adoption, the privilege to determine the child’s religious affiliation, and the responsibility for support.

‘Kinship caregiver’ means any of the following who is age 18 or older and is caring for a child in place of the child’s parents:

  • Any individual meeting the definitions of ‘specified relative’ above
  • A legal guardian of the child
  • A legal custodian of the child
Purpose of Guardianship

This issue is not addressed in the statutes and regulations reviewed.

A Guardian’s Rights and Responsibilities

‘Legal custody’ means a legal status that vests in the custodian the right and duty:

  • To have physical care and control of the child
  • To determine where and with whom the child shall live
  • To protect, train, and discipline the child
  • To provide the child with food, shelter, education, and medical care

The rights and duties of the custodian are all subject to any residual parental rights, privileges, and responsibilities. An individual granted legal custody shall exercise the rights and responsibilities personally unless otherwise authorized by any section of the Revised Code or by the court.

Qualifying the Guardian

A public or private children services agency may approve placement with the following substitute caregivers if the placement is determined to be in the child’s best interests and the substitute caregivers are not certified through the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services:

  • A relative by blood or marriage who, in accordance with §§ 5103.02 and 5103.03, is exempt from certification and is being considered as a substitute caregiver
  • A nonrelative who has a relationship with the child and/or family and who, in accordance with § 5153.161 approved by the court

Prior to placing the child with the relative or nonrelative substitute caregiver, the agency shall do the following to approve the placement:

  • Collect identifying information on the prospective caregiver and all household members
  • Assure that a search of the statewide automated child welfare information system has been completed for the prospective caregiver and adult household members
  • Assess the safety, cleanliness, and suitability of the home
  • Assess the prospective caregiver’s ability and willingness to provide care and supervision of the child and to provide a safe and appropriate placement for the child
  • Require all adults in the home to identify any prior agency involvement
  • Collect fingerprints from the prospective caregiver and all adults residing within the home in order to request State and Federal criminal records checks
  • Require the prospective caregiver to submit written notification if a person whom is at least age 12, but less than age 18, residing in the home has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to any offenses described in § 5103.0319, or has been adjudicated to be a delinquent child for committing an act that if committed by an adult would have constituted such a violation
Procedures for Establishing Guardianship

If a child is adjudicated an abused, neglected, or dependent child, the court may award legal custody of the child to either parent or to any other person who, prior to the dispositional hearing, files a motion requesting legal custody of the child or is identified as a proposed legal custodian in a complaint or motion filed prior to the dispositional hearing by any party to the proceedings. A proposed legal custodian shall be awarded legal custody of the child only if the person signs a statement of understanding for legal custody that contains at least the following provisions:

  • That it is the intent of the person to become the legal custodian of the child and the person is able to assume legal responsibility for the care and supervision of the child
  • That the person understands that legal custody of the child in question is intended to be permanent in nature and that as the custodian the person will be responsible for the child until the child reaches the age of majority
  • That the parents of the child have residual parental rights, privileges, and responsibilities, including, but not limited to, the privilege of reasonable visitation, consent to adoption, the privilege to determine the child’s religious affiliation, and the responsibility for support
  • That the person understands that the person must be present in court for the dispositional hearing in order to affirm the person’s intention to become legal custodian, to affirm that the person understands the effect of the custodianship before the court, and to answer any questions that the court or any parties to the case may have
Contents of a Guardianship Order

This issue is not addressed in the statutes and regulations reviewed.

Modification/Revocation of Guardianship

This issue is not addressed in the statutes and regulations reviewed.

Eligibility for Guardianship Subsidy

The purpose of the kinship permanency incentive program is to promote permanency for a minor child in the legal and physical custody of a kinship caregiver. The program shall provide an initial one-time incentive payment to the kinship caregiver to defray the costs of initial placement of the child in the kinship caregiver’s home. The program may provide additional permanency incentive payments for the child at 6 month intervals for a total period not to exceed 48 months, based on the availability of funds.

A kinship caregiver may participate in the program if all of the following requirements are met:

  • The kinship caregiver applies to a public children services agency in accordance with the application process established in administrative rules.
  • No earlier than July 1, 2005, a juvenile court issues an order granting legal custody to the kinship caregiver, or a probate court grants guardianship to the kinship caregiver. A temporary court order is not sufficient to meet this requirement.
  • The kinship caregiver is either the minor child’s custodian or guardian.
  • The minor child resides with the kinship caregiver pursuant to a placement approved by the agency.
  • Excluding any income excluded under the rules, the gross income of the kinship caregiver’s family, including the minor child, does not exceed 300 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines.
Links to Agency Policies

Ohio Administrative Code § 5101:2-40-04: Kinship Permanency Incentive (KPI) Program

 

Placement of Children With Relatives

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (627 KB) of this publication.

Current Through July 2013

Relative Placement for Foster Care and Guardianship

A kinship caregiver is a person age 18 or older who is related to the child by blood or marriage and who is caring for the child in place of the child’s parents. Relatives can include:

  • Grandparents, including great, great-great, and great-great-great-grandparents
  • Siblings
  • Aunts, uncles, nephews, and nieces, including any relative with a great, great-great, or grand prefix
  • First cousins and first cousins once removed
  • Stepparents and stepsiblings of the child
  • Spouses or former spouses of any of the above
  • A legal guardian or legal custodian of the child

In regulation: When a child cannot remain in his or her own home, the child-placing agency shall explore both maternal and paternal relatives regarding their willingness and ability to assume temporary custody or guardianship of the child. Unless it is not in the child’s best interests, the agency shall explore placement with a noncustodial parent before considering other relatives.

If a suitable relative is not available to assume temporary custody or guardianship, the agency shall explore placement with a suitable nonrelative who has a relationship with the child and/or family.

The agency shall place children only in substitute care settings that are licensed, certified, or approved by the agency of the State that has responsibility for licensing, certifying, or approving facilities of the type in which the child is placed or in homes of relatives or nonrelatives.

Requirements for Placement with Relatives

Prior to placing the child with the relative or nonrelative substitute caregiver, the agency shall adhere to the following procedures in approving the placement setting:

  • Collect identifying information
  • Complete a search of the statewide automated child welfare information system
  • Assess the safety and cleanliness of the home
  • Provide the prospective caregiver with information regarding educational, medical, child care, and special needs of the child, including information on how to access support services
  • Provide the prospective caregiver with the following information:
    • How to apply for child-only financial assistance and Medicaid coverage
    • The requirements for foster caregiver certification
  • Assess the prospective caregiver’s ability and willingness to provide safe and appropriate care and supervision of the child
  • Require all adults in the home to identify prior protective services involvement
  • Complete a criminal records check on the prospective caregiver and all adults residing in the home
  • Require the prospective caregiver to submit written notification if a person age 12 to 18 residing in the home has been convicted of or plead guilty to any offenses described in § 5103.0319 of the Revised Code, or has been adjudicated to be a delinquent child for committing an act that if committed by an adult would have constituted such a violation

If a child must be removed from his or her home immediately, the agency may place the child with the prospective relative or nonrelative caregiver if there are no known safety concerns and initiate the assessment of the home no later than the next business day.

Requirements for Placement of Siblings

The child-placing agency shall attempt to place siblings in the same home unless it is not in the child’s or siblings’ best interests.

In the child’s best interests, the agency shall make arrangements for visits and communication between the child and his or her siblings and other family members or individuals who are integral to maintaining connections. The agency also shall make arrangements for visits related to the maintenance of connections with Indian Tribes pursuant to rule 5101:2-53-06 of the Administrative Code.

Relatives Who May Adopt

If a child-placing agency has placed a child in a foster home or with a relative of the child, other than a parent of the child, the agency shall notify the child’s foster caregiver or relative if the agency seeks permanent custody of the child or, if the agency already has permanent custody of the child, seeks to place the child for adoption. The notice also shall inform the foster caregiver or relative that the foster caregiver or relative can be considered for adoption.

Requirements for Adoption by Relatives

If the foster caregiver or relative informs the agency that the foster caregiver or relative wants to adopt the child, the agency shall inform the foster caregiver or relative of the process for obtaining an application to adopt the child and that the child may be placed for adoption in another home even if the foster caregiver or relative submits the application. If the agency is given permanent custody of the child and the foster caregiver or relative has informed the agency of the foster caregiver’s or relative’s desire to adopt the child, the agency shall consider giving preference to an adult relative over a nonrelative caregiver when determining an adoptive placement for the child, provided the adult relative satisfies all relevant child protection standards and the agency determines that the placement is in the child’s best interests.

 

Reasonable Efforts to Preserve or Reunify Families and Achieve Permanency for Children

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (539 KB) of this publication.

Current Through March 2016

What Are Reasonable Efforts

Reasonable efforts are relevant services provided by the child welfare agency to the family of the child.

When Reasonable Efforts Are Required

Reasonable efforts must be made:

  • To prevent removal of the child from the home
  • To eliminate the continued removal of the child from home
  • To make it possible for the child to return safely home
When Reasonable Efforts Are NOT Required

The court shall determine that reasonable efforts are not required if any of the following apply:

  • The parent from whom the child was removed has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to one of the following:
    • Murder or voluntary manslaughter of another child in the household
    • Assault, endangering children, rape, sexual battery, corruption of a minor, or sexual imposition of the child or another child in the household
    • Trafficking in persons, compelling prostitution, or promoting prostitution of the child, a sibling of the child, or another child who lived in the parent’s household at the time of the offense
    • Conspiracy, attempt to commit, or complicity in committing, an offense described above
  • The parent has repeatedly withheld medical treatment or food from the child.
  • The parent has placed the child at substantial risk of harm two or more times due to drug or alcohol abuse and has rejected treatment two or more times.
  • The parent has abandoned the child.
  • The parent’s parental rights to another child have been terminated involuntarily.

 

Standby Guardianship

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (354 KB) of this publication.

Current Through February 2015

Who Can Nominate a Standby Guardian

A person may nominate in a writing another person to be the guardian of one or more of the nominator’s minor or incompetent adult children, whether born at the time of the execution of the writing or afterward.

How to Establish a Standby Guardian

The nomination is for consideration by a court if proceedings for the appointment of a guardian of the person, the estate, or both, of one or more of the nominator’s minor or incompetent adult children are commenced at a later time. The person may authorize, in a writing of that nature, the person nominated as guardian to nominate a successor guardian for consideration by a court. The person also may direct, in a writing of that nature, that bond be waived for a person nominated as guardian in it or nominated as a successor guardian in accordance with an authorization in it.

To be effective as a nomination, the writing shall be signed by the person making the nomination in the presence of two witnesses; signed by the witnesses; and contain, immediately prior to their signatures, an attestation of the witnesses that the person making the nomination signed the writing in their presence; or be acknowledged by the person making the nomination before a notary public.

How Standby Authority is Activated

Nomination of a person as a guardian or successor guardian of the person, the estate, or both, of one or more of the nominator’s minor or incompetent adult children, and any subsequent appointment of the guardian or successor guardian as guardian under § 2111.02, does not vacate the jurisdiction of any other court that previously may have exercised jurisdiction over the person of the minor or incompetent adult child.

The writing containing the nomination of a person to be the guardian of the person, the estate, or both, of one or more of the nominator’s minor or incompetent adult children may be filed with the probate court for safekeeping, and the probate court shall designate the nomination as the nomination of a standby guardian.

Involvement of the Noncustodial Parent

Citation:
This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Authority Relationship of the Parent and the Standby

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Withdrawing Guardianship

A person’s nomination, in a writing described above, of one or more of the nominator’s minor children or incompetent adult children is revoked by the person’s subsequent nomination of a guardian of one or more of the nominator’s minor children or incompetent adult children, and, except for good cause shown or disqualification, the court shall make its appointment in accordance with the person’s most recent nomination. If the writing contains a waiver of bond, the court shall waive bond of the person nominated as guardian unless it is of the opinion that the interest of the trust demands it.

It is important to know that when you make up your motion to dismiss, you will only be able to use opinions from the right court of appeals for YOUR area. There are 11 of them. If you do not know which district you would choose from CLICK HERE. Each have reconsidered court cases from the area that they represent.

For each subject you would like to consider in your motion, choose the correct reviewed case from the appeal court, US Law, or State law. Insert them into your motion as needed.

 

5. I was told by caseworkers name that if I did not tell her anything that CPS would take my child away.

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

Coercive or intimidating behavior supports a reasonable belief that compliance is compelledCassady v. Tackett, 938 F. 2d (6th Cir. 1991).

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

Consent” that is the product of official intimidation or harassment is not consent at all. Citizens do not forfeit their constitutional rights when they are coerced to comply with a request that they would prefer to refuse. Florida v. Bostick, 501 US 429 (1991).  

Coercion can be mental as well as physical.Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 US (1960)

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

10.  HH told me that if I did not answer a few questions, my child would be taken into DHS custody and placed in foster care. I was coerced into speaking with her and did so under duress. 

11.  The evidence used to gain entry did not satisfy the standard of probable cause.

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

ANY type of communication, which conveys the idea to the parent that they have no realistic alternative but to allow entry negates any claim that the entry was lawfully gained through the channel of consent.  “Consent to warrantless entry must be voluntary and not the result of duress or coercion. Lack of intelligence, not understanding the right not to consent, or trickery invalidate voluntary consent”.Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 US 218 (1973). 

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

13.  

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

Police officers and social workers are not immune from coercing or forcing entry into a person’s home without a search warrant.  Calabretta v. Floyd (9th Cir. 1999).

However, when determining whether the court has jurisdiction because of conditions and circumstances, the focus must be on the child’s current conditions and circumstances and not on some point in the past. Father caused injury to child, court took jurisdiction. Mother left father and improved her life. Court had no more jurisdiciton of child. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. S. A., 230 Or App 346, 347, 214 P3d 851 (2009)

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

16.  There are two and only two recognized exceptions to the requirement of having a warrant for the conduct of a child abuse investigation:

a.) The adult in charge of the premises gives the social worker his/her free and voluntary consent to enter the home.

b.) The social worker possesses evidence that meets two standards:

(1) it satisfies the legal standard of establishing probable cause; and

(2) the evidence demonstrates that there are exigent circumstances relative to the health of the children.

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

 

17.  CPS worker HH was in fact, acting under the authority or color of state law at the time this occurred in her official capacity as a social worker for Iowa DHS.

18.  Her execution of Iowa Department of Human Services’ “customs” and/or “policies” were the moving force behind her unconstitutional acts, and that personally, her individual unconstitutional acts violated my clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable official would have knownDavis v. Scherer (1984).

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

As the United States Supreme Court has explained: “In terms that apply equally to seizures of property and to seizures of persons, the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.” ( Payton v. New York (1980) 445 U.S. 573, 590 [100 S.Ct. 1371, 1382, 63 L.Ed.2d 639].)

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

 

 

25.  There was no court order for this, nor did exigent circumstances exist as stated by Caseworkers Name in her initial assessment. 

26.  .    

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

Social workers and police cannot lawfully seize a child without a warrant or the existence of probable cause to believe the child was in imminent danger of harm. Where police were not informed of any abuse of the child prior to arriving at caretaker’s home and found no evidence of abuse while there, seizure of the child was not objectively reasonable and violated the clearly established Fourth Amendment rights of the child. Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge, (5th Cir. 2000).

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

Child removals are “seizures” under the Fourth Amendment.  Seizure is unconstitutional without a court order or exigent circumstances. Brokaw v. Mercer County, (7th Cir. 2000)

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

For purposes of the Fourth Amendment, a “seizure” of a person is a situation in which a reasonable person would feel that he is not free to leave, and also either actually yields to a show of authority from police or social workers or is physically touched by police. Persons may not be “seized” without a court order or being placed under arrest. California v. Hodari, 499 U.S. 621 (1991).

As the United States Supreme Court has explained: “In terms that apply equally to seizures of property and to seizures of persons, the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.” ( Payton v. New York (1980) 445 U.S. 573, 590 [100 S.Ct. 1371, 1382, 63 L.Ed.2d 639].)

“Exigent circumstances” means “an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence.” ( People v. Ramey, supra, at p. 276.)

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

Jordan by Jordan v. Jackson, 15 F. 3d 333, 342-346 (4th Cir. 1994) (” The State’s removal of a child from his parent’s home indisputably constitutes an interference with a liberty interest of the parents and thus triggers the procedural protections of the 14th amendment. . . . Forced separation of parent from child, even for a short time, represents a serious impingement on those rights.”)

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

Absent extraordinary circumstances, a parent has a liberty interest in familial association and privacy that cannot be violated without adequate pre-deprivation procedures. An ex parte hearing based on misrepresentation and omission does not constitute notice and an opportunity to be heard. Procurement of an order to seize a child through distortion, misrepresentation and/or omission is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Parents may assert their children’s Fourth Amendment claim on behalf of their children as well as asserting their own Fourteenth Amendment claim. Malik v.Arapahoe Cty. Dept. of Social Services, (10th Cir. 1999)

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

38.  The CPS Assessment report falsely states that I told her I used meth once a week for the past several months.  I did NOT make this statement to anyone, and my UA on March 11, 2011 was negative.  

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

Court orders obtained based on knowingly false information violates Fourth Amendment.  Brokaw v. Mercer County, (7th Cir. 2000).

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

39.  On March 12, 2011, I signed over temporary legal guardianship of my child to Don and Sarah Boeckholt, for a period not to exceed 6 months.

40.  CPS removed my child after I informed Ms. Hewitt of this fact, which she failed to disclose to the court during the removal hearing. This is a lie of omission. A lie of omission is to remain silent when ethical behavior calls for one to speak up. A lie of omission is a method of deception and duplicity that uses the technique of simply remaining silent when speaking the truth would significantly alter the other person’s (the judge’s) capacity to make an informed decision.

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

 

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

 

23.  I was coerced into signing a “voluntary” Safety Plan.  The CPS worker, Caseworkers Name, threatened me that if I did not sign the “voluntary” service plan that my child would be TPR’ed. 

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

 According to Amanda C., by and through Gary Richmond, natural parent and next friend, appellee, v. Kelly Case, appellant. N.W.2d  Filed May 23, 2008. No. S-06-1097 this is unauthorized practice of law and acting under the Color of Law.

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

 

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

27.  The assessment by Caseworker’s name does not specify what exigent circumstances existed or what immediate danger to life or health my child was in to justify an emergency situation. None of the following apply:

Put CPS rules of exigent circumstances here

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

If anything, this case shows you that you must challenge the court or you will not get another chance.

SAMPLE:   I am therefore establishing ON THE RECORD that I strongly challenge that an emergency existed to remove my child, and most certainly do withdraw any “voluntary” agreements I was coerced into entering into.

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

In the opinion of Judge Stephen Limbaugh Jr. in the majority Opinion of the Supreme Court of Missouri, In the Interest of: P.L.O. and S.K.O., minor children. SC85120 (3/30/2004):  “The mother voluntarily consented to the court’s jurisdiction over her children, voluntarily transferred their custody to the division and never challenged the circumstances of their removal. Accordingly, she cannot now challenge whether an ’emergency’ existed to justify removal of her child under (the statute in question) and this court need not address such a challenge.”

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

CPS Statutes

36.  The CPA falsely states that there are domestic violence issues in the home. My child herself states that Steve was never mean to us, and that she did not witness any violence.

37.  CPS worker caseworkers name states that my child witnessing domestic abuse constitutes as neglect/denial of critical care and is basis for her removal.  

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

In a landmark class action suit in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, U.S. District Judge Jack Weistein ruled on Nicholson v. Williams, Case No.: 00-cv-2229, the suit challenged the practice of New York’s City’s Administration for Children’s Services of removing the children of battered mothers solely because the children saw their mothers being beaten by husbands or boyfriends.  Judge Weistein ruled that the practice is unconstitutional and he ordered it stopped.

3rd Circuit

The Department failed to show any evidence to support that father himself caused injuries.
The trial court found that something happened to the child over the weekend and that the injuries were consistent with “child physical abuse.” The Third District Court of Appeal (Third DCA) agreed with the trial court that the child was harmed pursuant to the statutory definition of harm but found the Department failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Father inflicted or allowed someone else to inflict the injuries to the child. Specifically, the Third DCA pointed to a lack of any evidence to support that Father caused the injuries and noted that the child was exposed to a number of individuals over the weekend, including Father’s wife, her children and a number of other relatives. H.C. v. Department of Children and Family Services and Guardian ad Litem Program, 141 So.3d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

 

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

Judicial determinations that remaining in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the child and that reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal and to finalize the permanency plan in effect, as well as judicial determinations that reasonable efforts are not required, must be explicitly documented, made on a case-by-case basis, and stated in the court order.  A transcript of the court proceeding is the only other documentation that will be accepted to verify that these determinations have been made. Affidavits, nunc pro tunc orders, and references to state law are not acceptable.  45 C.F.R. §1356.21(d). The court, after hearing the evidence, must be satisfied that reasonable efforts . . . have been made.  Review and approval of the [state] agency’s report and recommendation alone are not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Act; the court must make a determination that the agency’s efforts were, in the judgment of the court, reasonable for preventing placement. With regard to emergency situations, if the agency’s judgment was that services could not have prevented removal of the child, the court at the time of the adjudicatory hearing must find that the lack of preventive efforts was reasonable.

43.  The reasonable efforts claimed to have been made by CPS were inconsistent in the various court documents, which was not questioned before making a determination.

44.  CPS was never required to provide specific and detailed documentation to prove that Reasonable Efforts were in fact made.  

 

 

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

The juvenile court is required to make factual findings to support its conclusion that reasonable efforts have been made to avoid or eliminate the need for removal of the child from the home. It is not sufficient to merely conclude that reasonable efforts have been made without more. In Interest of B.L., 491 N.W.2d 789, 791 (Iowa App. 1992).

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

42 C.F.R. Section 1356.21(d) requires documentation of judicial determinations concerning both reasonable efforts and contrary to the welfare findings. They are to be explicitly documented on a case by case basis and so stated in the court order. Facts substantiating the legal conclusion must be stated in the order. Lack of compliance results in denial of federal funds for the child’s foster placement.

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

Police officer and social worker may not conduct a warrantless search or seizure in a suspected child abuse case absent exigent circumstances.  Defendants must have reason to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy and that the intrusion is reasonable necessary to alleviate the threat.  Searches and seizures in investigation of a child neglect or child abuse case at a home are governed by the same principles as other searches and seizures at a home. Goodv. Dauphin County Social Services (3rd Cir. 1989)

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

 

 

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

A police officer and a social worker may not conduct a warrantless search or seizure in a suspected child abuse case absent exigent circumstances. Defendants must have reason to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy and that the intrusion is reasonable necessary to alleviate the threat. Searches and seizures in investigation of a child neglect or child abuse case at a home are governed by the same principles as other searches and seizures at a home.  Good v. Dauphin County Social Services (3rd Cir. 1989).

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

Children may not be removed from their home by police officers or social workers without notice and a hearing unless the officials have a reasonable belief that the children were in imminent danger.  Ram v. Rubin, (9th Cir. 1997)

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

The Department failed to show any evidence to support that father himself caused injuries.
The trial court found that something happened to the child over the weekend and that the injuries were consistent with “child physical abuse.” The Third District Court of Appeal (Third DCA) agreed with the trial court that the child was harmed pursuant to the statutory definition of harm but found the Department failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Father inflicted or allowed someone else to inflict the injuries to the child. Specifically, the Third DCA pointed to a lack of any evidence to support that Father caused the injuries and noted that the child was exposed to a number of individuals over the weekend, including Father’s wife, her children and a number of other relatives. H.C. v. Department of Children and Family Services and Guardian ad Litem Program, 141 So.3d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

Defendants could not lawfully seize child without a warrant or the existence of probable cause to believe child was in imminent danger of harm. Where police were not informed of any abuse of the child prior to arriving at caretaker’s home and found no evidence of abuse while there, seizure of the child was not objectively reasonable and violated the clearly established Fourth Amendment rights of the child. Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge, (5th Cir. 2000)

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

 

 

CLICK HERE To Ask An Ohio CPS Attorney a FREE Question

Ask an Attorney a FREE question about your CPS case in Ohio.

Even if there are no questions listed here yet, please go ahead and ask yours. An attorney will be invited to answer questions here soon.

No questions found.