Colorado hotline expands reporting of suspected Child Abuse and Neglect Child abuse reporting State and local officials encourage Coloradans to report suspected child abuse and neglect. People living anywhere in Colorado can call the state child abuse/neglect hotline: 1-844-CO-4-KIDS (1-844-264-5437), to speak to a representative 24 hours a day, every day. People suspecting abuse of children or at-risk adults living in Boulder County can also call the county’s own hotline: 303-441-1309, also 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Information about Boulder County’s child welfare programs and services: bit.ly/1PmW8Uz Colorado Department of Human Services information about preventing and reporting child abuse and neglect: bit.ly/1FiAkQH With the approaching first anniversary of the launch of a toll-free statewide telephone hotline for reporting child abuse and neglect, child-welfare officials are urging Coloradans to stay vigilant if they’re concerned about a child’s safety and well-being. The Colorado Department of Human Services announced that as of Dec. 20, state and county officials had received nearly 205,000 reports of suspected child abuse or neglect since the hotline went live on Jan. 1 — both through the new state hotline and from people contacting counties’ and the state’s human services offices. “There is a growing understanding in our community that we all play a role in keeping our kids safe,” state Department of Human Services Director Reggie Bicha said in a news release. Bicha said the 1-844-CO-4-KIDS hotline is integral to help Coloradans spot and report signs of child abuse and neglect. “One call can save a child,” he said. Of the total 204,983 calls received by Dec. 20 about possible child abuse or neglect, 26,461 were made on the state hotline, according to Department of Human Services spokesman Lee Rasizer. Of that total, 4,516 came from Boulder County, 706 from Broomfield County and 5,395 from Weld County. Under a system in which calls are evaluated and determinations made about whether further assessments and investigations are merited, and how rapidly those assessments and investigations need to be made, 88,441 of the total calls to the state’s hotline and Colorado counties were accepted for assessment and 32,709 were assessed and investigated, Rasizer said. Accepted for assessment and possible further action, he said, were 1,678 of the original 4,516 reports originally received about possible child abuse or neglect in Boulder County, 183 of the 706 reports received about situations in Broomfield County, and 1,793 of the 5,395 reports about possible abuse or neglect in Weld County. The state child abuse and neglect hotline links callers at all hours to the appropriate official. All calls are confidential and will be routed to the county where a child resides. Boulder County also has its own child abuse hotline, 303-441-1309, said Jim Williams, spokesman for the County Department of Housing and Human Services. But in emergencies, call 911. “The hotline technology allows callers to be connected around the clock with screeners who can discuss their concerns with them,” Williams said.

Advertisements

CASE LAWS
The below information is not to be misinterpreted as any legal advice and is not presented by an attorney. This site is just designed to help as a guide and an individual should seek legal representation for further interpretation and applicability. Also realize some of the case laws may have been appealed or new case law precedent.
Links to Individual Circuit Court Case Laws
1st – ME, MA, NH, PR, RI
2nd – NY, VT, CT
3rd – PA, NJ, DE, VI
4th – MD, NC, SC, VA, WV
5th – LA, TX, MS
6th – MI, OH, KY TN
7th – IL, IN, WI
8th – ND, SD, MN, NE, IA, MO AR
9th – CA, OR, WA, AZ, MT, ID, NV, AK, HI
10th – CO, KS, NM, OK, UT, WY
11th – AL, GA, FL
DC – DC, Tax Court, fed admin agencies.
Federal Patent, Int’l Trade, Claims Court and Veterans’ Appeals.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE A PARENT CASE LAWS
Bell v. City of Milwaukee (7th Cir. 1984)
• The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake. The parent-child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. 746 f 2d 1205, 1242-45; US Ct. App 7th Cir WI (1985)
Carson v. Elrod
• No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child. 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976)
Doe v. Irwin (US. D. C. of Michigan 1985)
• The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14.
Doe et al, v. Heck et al (7th Cir. Ct. App. 2003)
• The practice of “no prior consent” interview of a child, will ordinarily constitute a “clear violation” of the constitutional rights of parents under the 4th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The investigative interview of a child constitutes a “search and seizure” and, when conducted on private property without “consent, a warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances (imminent danger),” such an interview is an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the rights of the parent, child, and, possibly of the private property.
Elrod v. Burns (96 S. Ct. 1976)
• Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government.
Franz v. U.S.
• A parent’s right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent’s achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability to participate in the rearing of his children. A child’s corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult. 707 F 2d 582, 595-599; US Ct App (1983)
Griswold v. Connecticut
• The Constitution also protects “the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters” Federal Courts (and State Courts), under Griswold can protect, under the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care, company, love and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law. There is a family right to privacy, which the state cannot invade or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages. 381 US 479, (1965)
Gross v. State of Illinois
• State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights. 312 F 2d 257; (1963)
In the Interest of Cooper (Kansas 1980)
• Parent’s interest in custody of their children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection.
In re J.S. and C.
• A parent’s right to care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.
Kelson v. Springfield (US Ct. App 9th Cir. 1985)
• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (California) held that the parent-child relationship is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. (See: Declaration of Independence–life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution — No state can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws.) 767 F 2d 651; US Ct. App 9th Cir, 1985
Langton v. Maloney (527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. 1981)
• The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one’s children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent’s custodial rights absent due process protections.
Matter of Delaney (617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma 1980) verify citation
• Parents have a fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal bond with their children.
Matter of Gentry
• A parent’s right to the custody of his or her children is an element of “liberty” guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983)
May v. Anderson (73 S. Ct. 840 1952)
• The United States Supreme Court noted that a parent’s right to “the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children” is an interest “far more precious” than any property right. 345 US 528, 533; 73 S. Ct. 840, 843 (1952)

Meyer v. Nebraska (43 S. Ct. 625 1923) check cite
• Parent’s rights have been recognized as being “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man.” 262 US 390; 43 S. Ct. 625 (1923)

Nicholson v. Williams
• 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 ruled the practice unconstitutional in a landmark class action suit in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York. Case No. 00-cv-2229.
Parham v. J.R. (1979)
• Involves parent’s rights to make medical decisions regarding their children’s mental health.
Quilloin v. Walcott (98 S. Ct. 549 1978)
• The U.S. Supreme Court implied that “a (once) married father who is separated or divorced from a mother and is no longer living with his child” could not constitutionally be treated differently from a currently married father living with his child. 98 S. Ct. 549; 434 US 246, 255-56, (1978)

Reynold v. Baby Fold, Inc. – verify citation
• Parent’s right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect.
Santosky v. Kramer (102 S. Ct. 1388 1982)
• Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that clear and convincing evidence rather than a mere preponderance were needed to terminate parental rights. 455 US 745 (1982)

Stanley v. Illinois (92 S. Ct. 1208 1972)
• The Court stressed, “the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.” A parent’s interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility. 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208 (1972)

DUE PROCESS CASE LAWS
Bendiburg v. Dempsey (11th Cir. 1990)
• Post-deprivation remedies do not provide due process if pre-deprivation remedies are practicable.
Brokaw v. Mercer County (7th Cir. 2000)
• Children have a Constitutional right to live with their parents without government interference. Child’s four month separation from his parents could be challenged under substantive due process. Sham procedures don’t constitute true procedural due process. — Just the highlights
Chrissy v. Miss. Department of Public Welfare (5th Cir. 1991)
• Plaintiff’s clearly established right to meaningful access to the courts would be violated by suppression of evidence and failure to report evidence.
Croft v. Westmoreland Cty. Children and Youth Services (3rd Cir. 1997)
• Social worker who received a telephone accusation of abuse and threatened to remove child from the home unless the father himself left and who did not have ground to believe the child was in imminent danger of being abused engaged in an arbitrary abuse of governmental power in ordering the father to leave.
K.H. through Murphy v. Morgan (7th Cir. 1990)
• When the state deprives parents and children of their right to familial integrity, even in an emergency situation, the burden is on the State to initiate prompt judicial proceedings for a post-deprivation hearing, and it is irrelevant that a parent could have hired counsel to force a hearing.
Lassiter v. Department of Social Services (1981)
• State intervention to terminate the relationship between a parent and a child must be accomplished by procedures meeting the requisites of the Due Process Clause. 452 US 18, 37.
Malik v. Arapahoe Cty. Department of Social Services (10th Cir. 1999)
• 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.
Morris v. Dearborne (5th Cir. 1999)
• Right to Procedural Due Process Violated: The state denied the plaintiff the fundamental right to a fair procedure before having their child removed by the intentional use of fraudulent evidence during the procedure.
Nicini v. Morra (3rd Cir. 2000)
• When the state places a child in state-regulated foster care, the state has duties and the failure to perform such duties may create liability under 1983. Liability may attach when the state has taken custody of a child, regardless of whether the child came to stay with a family on his own which was not an officially approved foster family.
Norfleet v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services (8th Cir. 1993)
• When the state places a child in a foster home it has an obligation to provide adequate medical care, protection, and supervision
Quilloin v. Walcott (1978)
• 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. 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978)
Ram v. Rubin (9th Cir. 1997)
• 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 are in imminent danger.
Whisman v. Rinehart (8th Cir. 1997)
• Mother had a clearly established right to an adequate, prompt post-deprivation hearing. A 17 day period prior to the hearing was not a prompt hearing.
Yvonne L. v. New Mexico Department of Human Services (10th Cir. 1992)
• Children placed in a private foster home have substantive due process right to personal security and bodily integrity.
GENERAL FAMILY RIGHTS CASE LAWS
Blackburn v. Alabama 361 U.S. 199, 206 (1960)
• Coercion can be mental as well as physical.
Brokaw v. Mercer County (7th Cir. 2000)
• Children have standing to sue for their removal after they reach the age of majority. Children have a constitutional right to live with their parents without government interference. — Just the highlights
Cassady v. Tackett
• Coercive or intimidating behavior supports a reasonable belief that compliance is compelled.
Florida v. Bostick (S. Ct. 1991)
• “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.
J.B. v. Washington County (10th Cir. 1997)
• The forced separation of parent from child, even for a short time (in this case 18 hours), represents a serious infringement upon the rights of both.
K.H. through Murphy v. Morgan (7th Cir. 1990)
• State employee who withhold a child from their family may infringe on the family’s liberty of familial association. Social workers could not deliberately remove children from their parents and place them with foster caregivers when the officials reasonably should have known such an action would cause harm to the child’s mental or physical health.
Malik v. Arapahoe Cty. Department of Social Services (10th Cir. 1999)
• Absent extraordinary circumstances, a parent has a liberty interest in familial association and privacy that cannot be violated without adequate pre-deprivation procedures.
North Hudson DYFS v. Koehler Family (2001)
• The court explained “absent some tangible evidence of abuse or neglect, the Courts do not authorize fishing expeditions into citizens’ houses. Mere parroting of the phrase “best interest of the child” without supporting facts and a legal basis is insufficient to support a Court order based on reasonableness or any other ground.”
Thomason v. Scan Volunteer Services, Inc. (8th Cir. 1996)
• Parent interest is of “the highest order,” and the court recognizes “the vital importance of curbing overzealous suspicion and intervention on the part of health care professionals and government officials.”
Troxel v. Granville (2002)
• The state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when a fit parent is available. – Just the highlights. 530 U.S. 57
Valmonte v. Bane (2nd Cir. 1993) Decided March 03, 1994
• A Central Register that identifies individuals accused of child abuse and neglect and the communication of those names to potential employers in the child care field, implicates a protectible liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Appellant alleged the inclusion of her name on the New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment violated her right of due process. On appeal, court ruled that the appellant’s right of due process was violated because it was found that she did have a liberty interest which was imperiled by the procedures.
• The court noted that the procedures, which permitted inclusion on the Register by virtue of “some credible evidence” of abuse, created a high risk of error.
• In a similiar case Paul v. Davis, the court ruled that damage to one’s reputation is not “by itself sufficient to invoke the procedural protection of the Due Process Clause. Rather, the Court held, loss of reputation must be coupled with some other tangible element in order to rise to the level of a protectible liberty interest. This has been interpreted to mean that “stigma plus” is required to establish a constitutional deprivation.
Ward v. San Jose (9th Cir. 1992)
• A child has a constitutionally protected interest in the companionship and society of his or her parent.
Weller v. Department of Social Services for Baltimore (4th Cir. 1990)
• The private, fundamental liberty interest involved in retaining custody of one’s child and the integrity of one’s family is of the greatest importance.
Whisman v. Rinehart (8th Cir. 1997)
• Parents and child had a clearly established liberty interest in associating together. This right was violated where the defendants allegedly had no indication of any physical neglect of the child, no indication of any immediate threat to his welfare, and no indication of any criminal activity by his mother, where they had only third-hand hearsay that the child’s mother had gotten drunk and failed to pick up the child from his babysitter, and where defendants refused to return the child, had not investigated to determine whether it was necessary to remove the child in the first place, and had not investigated the possibility of returning the child to his mother, grandmother, or anyone designated by the mother.
JUDGES & PROSECUTORS – ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY CASE LAWS
Ashelman v. Pope
• As long as the judge’s ultimate acts are judicial actions taken within the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, immunity applies. — Just the highlights
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons (S. Ct. 1993)
• Prosecutor’s allegedly false statements made during a press conference announcing the indictment of plaintiff had no functional tie to the judicial process and were not entitled to absolute immunity.
Chrissy v. Miss Department of Public Welfare (5th Cir. 1991)
• Prosecutor was not entitled to absolute immunity for failure to initiate an investigation, failing to disclose medical reports at a court hearing and allowing father to have contact with child in violation of a court order.
Forrester v. White (S. Ct. 1988)
• Holding that judges do not have absolute immunity when acting in an administrative capacity. — Just the highlights
Joseph v. Patterson (6th Cir. 1986)
• Prosecutor was not entitled to absolute immunity where it is alleged that he supervised and participated in an unconstitutional police interrogation.
Kalina v. Fletcher (S. Ct. 1997)
• A prosecutor is not entitled to absolute immunity for allegedly false statements of fact made in an affidavit supporting an application for a warrant.
Power v. Coe (2nd Cir. 1984)
• Prosecutor is not entitled to absolute immunity for statements he distributes to the press.
Zarcone v. Perry
• Denying judicial immunity to a judge who ordered a coffee vendor brought before him in handcuffs because of the poor quality of the coffee.
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY CASE LAWS
Ernst v. Child and Youth Department of Chester County (3rd Cir. 1997)
• Court emphasizes that only qualified immunity is available for “investigating or administrative” actions such as opening and investigating child abuse cases.
Germany v. Vance (1st Cir. 1989)
• Case worker who intentionally or recklessly withheld potentially exculpatory information from an adjudicated delinquent or from the court itself was not entitled to qualified immunity.
Good v. Daupin County Social Services (3rd Cir. 1989)
• Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity for conducting a warrantless search of home during a child abuse investigation where exigent circumstances were not present. Court held that a search warrant or exigent circumstances, such as a need to protect a child against imminent danger of serious bodily injury, was necessary for an entry without consent, and an anonymous tip was insufficient to establish special exigency. 891 F.2d 1087
Grossman v. City of Portland (9th Cir. 1994)
• Individuals aren’t immune for the results of their official conduct simply because they were enforcing policies or orders. Where a statute authorizes official conduct which is patently violative of fundamental constitutional principles, an officer who enforces that statute is not entitled to qualified immunity.
Hafer v. Melo (S. Ct. 1991)
• Social workers (and other government employees) may be sued for deprivation of civil rights under 42 USC 1983 if they are named in their ‘official and individual capacity. — Just the highlights
Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982)
• If the law was clearly established at the time the action occurred, a police officer is not entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity based on good faith since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his or her conduct. 457 U.S. 800, 818
Hurlman v. Rice (2nd Cir. 1991)
• Defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity or summary judgment because he should have investigated further prior to ordering seizure of children based on information he had overheard.
K.H. through Murphy v. Morgan (7th Cir. 1990)
• Social workers were not entitled to absolute immunity where no court order commanded them to place plaintiff with particular foster caregivers.
Malik v. Arapahoe Cty. Department of Social Services (10th Cir. 1999)
• Police officer was not entitled to absolute immunity for her role in procurement of court order placing child in state custody where there was evidence officer spoke with the social worker prior to social worker’s conversation with the magistrate and there was evidence that described the collaborative worker of the two defendants in creating a “plan of action” to deal with the situation. Officer’s acts were investigative and involved more than merely carrying out a judicial order.
Malley v. Briggs (S. Ct. 1986)
• Police officer is not entitled to absolute immunity, only qualified immunity, to claim that he caused plaintiff to be unlawfully arrested by presenting judge with an affidavit that failed to establish probable cause.
McCord v. Maggio (5th Cir. 1991)
• Immunity is defeated if the official took the complained-of action with malicious intention to cause a deprivation of rights, or the official violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
Millspaugh v. County Department of Public Welfare (7th Cir. 1991)
• Social worker was entitled to absolute immunity for her testimony in an ex-parte judicial proceeding, but her application for the ex-parte order is only entitled to qualified immunity.
Shay v. Rossi (2000)
• Connecticut Supreme Court decision on qualified immunity and the individual liability of the state child welfare workers. The court held, inter alia, that the common-law doctrine of sovereign immunity did not bar claims against officers and employees of the Department of Children and Families in their official capacities and that statutory immunity under Connecticut Gen. Stat 4-165 did not prohibit claims against defendents in their individual capacities.
• Background: The state supreme court will decide the threshold issue of whether the denial of a motion to dismiss on grounds of sovereign immunity is an appealable final judgment. The trial court denied defendent’s motion to dismiss tort claims against the defendents in their official capacity. The trial court rules that the allegation that the defendents exceeded their statutory authority in issuing a 96-hour hold takes the case out of the realm of sovereign immunity. On appeal, the plaintiff’s argue that their failure to allege reckless, wanton or malicious conduct does not implicate the court’s jurisdiction, but rather affects only the legal sufficiency of the case. On cross appeal, the defendents argue that – due to the lack of any allegation that the defendents either did not have the statutory authority to issue a 96-hour hold or issued the hold to further an illegal plan-the court erred in denying the motion to dismiss claims against them in their official capacity.
Snell v. Tunnell (10th Cir. 1990)
• Social workers were not entitled to absolute immunity for pleadings filed to obtain pick-up order for temporary custody prior to formal petition being filed. Social workers were not entitled to absolute immunity where department policy was for social workers to report findings of neglect or abuse to other authorities for further investigation or initiation of court proceedings.
• Social workers investigating claims of child abuse are entitled only to qualified immunity.
• Assisting in the use of information known to be false in order to further an investigation is not subject to absolute immunity.
• Social workers are not entitled to qualified immunity on claims they deceived judicial officers in obtaining a custody order or deliberately or recklessly incorporated known falsehoods into their reports, criminal complaints and applications.
• Use of information known to be false is not reasonable, and acts of deliberate falsity or reckless disregard of the truth are not entitled to qualified immunity.
• No qualified immunity is available for incorporating allegations into the report or application where official had no reasonable basis to assume the allegations were true at the time the document was prepared.
Wallis v. Spencer and Wallis v. City of Escondido (9th Cir. 2000)
• State law cannot provide immunity from suit for federal civil rights violations. State law providing immunity from suit for child abuse investigators has no application to suits under 1983. — Just the highlights. 202 F.3d 1126
Walsh v. Erie County Department of Job and Family Services
• Child protection social workers claimed they were immune from liability in a civil violation (4th Amendment) suit, claiming qualified immunity because “they had not had training in Fourth Amendment law.” They felt they couldn’t be sued for their mistake, because they thought they were not binded by the Fourth Amendment. The court disagreed ruling “That subjective basis for their ignorance about and actions in violation of the Fourth Amendment does not relieve them of the consequences of that ignorance and those actions.” and denied their immunity. 3:01-cv-7588.
Whisman v. Rinehart (8th Cir. 1997)
• Defendants were not entitled to prosecutorial immunity where complaint was based on failure to investigate, detaining minor child, and an inordinate delay in filing court proceedings, because such actions did not aid in the presentation of a case to the juvenile court.
Young v. Biggers (5th Cir. 1991)
• A defendant in a civil rights case is not entitled to any immunity if he or she gave false information either in support of an application for a search warrant or in presenting evidence to a prosecutor on which the prosecutor based his or her charge against the plaintiff.

GRANDPARENTS RIGHTS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES·MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 2017

2017 Legislation for Grandparents
Updated May – 19 – 2017 (scroll to bottom of this page)
The legislative year is in full swing. We will be placing information in this note as we receive notice of all new bills about Grandparent Rights, and/or visitation, with links. We will add more as it comes in. This is a Nationwide search:
DECEMBER 2016 MO HB260 Allows kinship placements for foster children – 2016-12-19 Prefiled. JANUARY 9, 2017 IN SB0027 Grandparent and great-grandparent visitation. Allows great-grandparents to seek visitation rights with their great-grandchildren in certain circumstances. Allows a grandparent or great-grandparent to seek visitation if the grandparent or great-grandparent has had meaningful contact with the child but, as a result of an estrangement between the parent of the child and the grandparent or great-grandparent, the parent of the child terminated the child’s visits with the grandparent or great-grandparent. Establishes factors for the court to consider in determining whether granting a grandparent or great-grandparent visitation rights is in the best interests of the child. 2017-01-03 To Senate Civil Law Committee. KY HB16 AN ACT relating to family member visitation rights. 2017-01-03 To House Judiciary Committee. NY S00287 Prohibits the court from granting custody of or unsupervised visitation with a child to a person who has been convicted or accused of raping the parent of the child. 2017-01-04 To Senate Children and Families Committee. VA HB1586 Court-ordered custody and visitation arrangements; transmission of order to child’s school. 2017-01-02 Committee Referral Pending. KY HB104 AN ACT relating to child custody and visitation. 2017-01-06 To House Judiciary Committee. MO HB112 Modifies provisions of law relating to custody of in vitro human embryos 2017-01-05 Read Second Time (H) MO HB447 Modifies when a court shall include a written finding in the judgment or order regarding child custody 2017-01-05 Introduced and Read First Time (H) NE LB122 Provide for family member visitation petitions 2017-01-06 Date of introduction
January 10, 2017 IN HB1223 Update – Grandparent and great-grandparent rights. Allows great-grandparents to seek visitation rights with their great-grandchildren in certain circumstances. Provides that a grandparent or great-grandparent may seek visitation with a child if the parent or guardian of the child refuses to allow or restricts visitation by the grandparent or great-grandparent. Establishes factors the court may consider in determining whether granting visitation rights to a grandparent or great-grandparent is in the best interests of the child. 2017-01-10 To House Judiciary Committee
MS SB2139 Update – Visitation; clarify right of vulnerable persons and wards who are adults. 2017-01-09 To Senate Judiciary, Division A Committee
January 11, 2017 NY S01614 Relates to standing of certain relatives in custody and guardianship proceedings. 2017-01-10 To Senate Children and Families Committee.
OR SB512 Relating to parentage. 2017-01-09 Introduction and first reading. Referred to President’s desk.
January 16, 2017 MS HB484 Care and custody of a child; revise delegation of powers regarding. 2017-01-13 To House Judiciary B Committee
MS HB853 Power of Attorney; revise to authorize parents to delegate for care and custody of a child. 2017-01-13 To House Judiciary A Committee
OK SB93 Medical treatment of child; authorizing court to order treatment for child under certain circumstances. Effective date. 2017-02-06 Authored by Senator Smalley
January 18, 2017 IN HB1428 Sibling visitation. Provides that a petition seeking visitation rights with a child may be filed by the child’s sibling, or by an individual on behalf of the sibling, in certain circumstances. Establishes factors for the court to consider in determining whether granting sibling visitation rights is in the best interests of the child. Requires the court to enter a decree after holding a hearing. Allows the court to modify an order granting or denying sibling visitation rights. 2017-01-17 To House Judiciary Committee
NY A02231 Prohibits a court from granting custody of a minor to anyone who has been convicted of any of the enumerated sex crimes except where court finds there is no significant risk to the child. 2017-01-17 To Assembly Judiciary Committee
January 20, 2017 HI SB216 Relating To Child Visitation. 2017-01-20 Introduced. HI HB163 Relating To Child Visitation. 2017-01-19 Pending introduction.
MS SB2654 Supporting and Strengthening Families Act; revise. 2017-01-16 To Senate Judiciary, Division A Committee MS SB2691 Supporting and Strengthening Families Act; technical correction. 2017-01-16 To Senate Judiciary, Division A Committee
MO HB659 Establishes the Missouri Earned Family and Medical Leave Act 2017-01-19 Introduced and Read First Time (H)
OK HB1456 Marriage and family; grandparental visitation rights; clarifying language; effective date. 2017-02-06 Authored by Representative Roberts (Dustin) OK HB1832 Children and juvenile code; modifying various sections; effective date. 2017-02-06 Authored by Representative Osborn (Leslie)
January 23, 2017
CT HB06444 An Act Concerning The Filing Of A Petition By A Grandparent Seeking Visitation With His Or Her Grandchild. 2017-01-23 To Joint Judiciary Committee
CT HB06449 An Act Concerning Grandparent Visitation With A Minor Child. 2017-01-23 To Joint Judiciary Committee
HI HB435 Relating To Grandparents. 2017-01-20 Pending introduction.
HI SB422 Relating To Child Visitation. 2017-01-20 Introduced.
HI SB542 Relating To Grandparents. 2017-01-20 Introduced.
OK SB718 Oklahoma Children’s Code; including new definition. Effective date. 2017-02-06 Authored by Senator Griffin
OK SB776 Oklahoma Children’s Code; clarifying definition. Effective date. Emergency. 2017-02-06 Authored by Senator Treat
January 24, 2017
HI HB983 Relating To Child Visitation. 2017-01-23 Pending introduction.
January 27, 2017
GA HB159 Domestic relations; adoption; substantially revise general provisions 2017-01-26 House Hopper
WA HB1661 Creating the department of children, youth, and families. 2017-02-03 [Hearing: Feb 3 @ 10:00 am] To House Early Learning & Human Services Committee
WA SB5498 Creating the department of children, youth, and families. 2017-01-26 To Senate Human Services, Mental Health & Housing Committee.
February 2, 2017
WA SB5598 Granting relatives, including but not limited to grandparents, the right to seek visitation with a child through the courts. 2017-01-31 To Senate Law & Justice Committee
February 6, 2017
MD HB812 Family Law – Grandparent Visitation 2017-02-03 To House Judiciary Committee
February 7, 2017
UT HB0289 Grandparent Visitation Amendments 2017-02-06 House/ received bill from Legislative Research in Clerk of the House
February 10, 2017
GA HB321 Domestic relations; de facto custodians custody arrangements; {de facto is the code word for “Grandparent”} 2017-02-09 House Hopper
IL SB1746 DCFS-FICTIVE KIN 2017-02-09 To Senate Assignments Committee
MD HB1165 Estates – Duties of Guardian of the Person – Notice and Visitation by Family 2017-02-09 To House Health and Government Operations Committee
TN HB1086 [Companion bill is SB0976] As introduced, creates a presumption, for the purposes of awarding grandparent visitation, that a custodial parent or parents or custodian opposes grandparent visitation if the grandparent has been denied visitation for a period of three months or more. – Amends TCA Title 36, Chapter 6, Part 3. 2017-02-09 Intro.
TN SB0976 [Companion bill is HB1086] As introduced, creates a presumption, for the purposes of awarding grandparent visitation, that a custodial parent or parents or custodian opposes grandparent visitation if the grandparent has been denied visitation for a period of three months or more. – Amends TCA Title 36, Chapter 6, Part 3. 2017-02-09 Filed for introduction
February 13, 2017
MD SB1032 Family Law – Grandparent Visitation 2017-02-10 To Senate Rules Committee
February 15, 2017
GA HB359 Supporting and Strengthening Families Act; enact
WV SB286 Relating to grandparents’ visitation rights 2017-02-14 To Senate Judiciary Committee
February 16, 2017
AR HB1568 To Grant Visitation Rights To Grandparents When A Parent Of A Child Is Deceased, Missing, Or In A Permanent Vegetative State. 2017-02-15 Filed
KY SB201 AN ACT relating to grandparent visitation rights. 2017-02-15 introduced in Senate
MN HF1207 Child and family services, mental health services, and operations provisions modified. 2017-02-15 To House Health and Human Services Reform Committee
MT HB468 Generally revise child abuse and neglect laws 2017-02-15 (C) Introduced Bill Text Available Electronically
UT SB0237 Servicemembers Custody and Visitation Amendments 2017-02-15 LFA/ bill sent to agencies for fiscal input in Legislative Research and General Counsel
WV HB2479 Uniform Deployed Parents Custody and Visitation Act 2017-02-15 To House Judiciary Committee
February 17, 2017
IA SF281 A bill for an act relating to grandparent and great-grandparent visitation. 2017-02-16 To Senate Judiciary Committee
MO HB852 Provides family access motion fees shall be waived by the court unless the court finds there has been compliance with the order of custody, visitation, or third-party custody. 2017-02-16 To House Judiciary Committee
MT HB467 Revise standards of evidence in child abuse and neglect cases 2017-02-20 [Hearing: Feb 20 @ 8:00 am] To House Judiciary Committee
OK HB1371 Marriage; deleting date requirement for certain appointments; effective date. 2017-02-07 To House Rules Committee
RI H5553 Divorce And Separation 2017-02-16 To House Judiciary Committee
WA HB2117 Granting relatives, including but not limited to grandparents, the right to seek visitation with a child through the courts. 2017-02-16 To House Judiciary Committee
February 21, 2017
WV HB2547 Relating to grandparent’s rights 2017-02-20 To House Judiciary Committee
New York – Heads up! Assemblywoman Carrie Woerner (D-113) is preparing to introduce legislation that will tighten the instances when grandparents can sue for child visitation under that state’s grandparent visitation statute. (The organization called “Parental Rights.Org” is supporting this bill)
February 22, 2017
IN HB1245 Notice of adoption to grandparents. Provides that a grandparent of a child sought to be adopted is entitled to notice of pending adoption proceedings if: (1) the grandparent has an existing right to petition for visitation; and (2) the grandparent’s right to visitation will not be terminated after the adoption. 2017-02-20 Committee report: amend do pass, adopted
MN SF1292 Children and family services and mental health services and operations provisions modifications 2017-02-22 To Senate Human Services Reform Finance and Policy Committee
MO HB977 Allows the court to grant reasonable visitation rights to siblings of a child whose parents are divorced or if one parent of the child is deceased 2017-02-21 Introduced and Read First Time (H)
February 23, 2017
WV HB2674 Relating to access to and receipt of certain information regarding a protected person. Note: This one does not relate directly to visitation, but does involve Grandparents 2017-02-22 To House Judiciary Committee
February 28, 2017
NY A06151 Provides that a great-grandparent may apply to the supreme court for visitation rights with respect to certain minor great-grandchildren where either or both of the parents of such child is or are deceased. 2017-02-27 To Assembly Judiciary Committee
March 1, 2017
WV SB470 Creating visitation rights for certain great-grandparents 2017-02-28 To Senate Judiciary Committee
March 2, 2017
THREE new bills in ARKANSAS: AR HB1773 To Amend Grandparents’ Rights In Custody And Visitation Matters; And To Grant Visitation Rights To Grandparents When A Parent Of A Child Is Deceased. 2017-03-01 To House Aging, Children and Youth, Legislative and Military Affairs Committee AR HB1783 To Amend The Law Concerning The Visitation Rights Of Grandparents And Great-grandparents. 2017-03-01 To House Aging, Children and Youth, Legislative and Military Affairs Committee AR HB1678 Concerning Visitation With An Incapacitated Person Or A Ward; And To Amend The Law Concerning Decisions Made By Appointed Guardians On Behalf Of Wards. 2017-02-24 To House Aging, Children and Youth, Legislative and Military Affairs Committee
FL H1121 Child Welfare 2017-03-01 Filed
March 3, 2017
FL S1558 Child Exploitation 2017-03-02 Filed
NY S04835 Relates to contact by siblings in foster care, surrender, destitute child and permanency proceedings. 2017-03-02 To Senate Children and Families Committee
RI S0383 Visitation Rights 2017-03-02 To Senate Judiciary Committee
RI S0406 Child Support 2017-03-02 To Senate Judiciary Committee
March 6, 2017
FL S1644 Grandparent Visitation Rights 2017-03-03 Filed
March 7, 2017
CT HB07244 An Act Concerning A Grandparent’s Right To Visitation With His Or Her Grandchild. 2017-03-07 To Joint Judiciary Committee
March 8, 2017
IL HB3169 DCFS-YOUTH IN CARE 2017-02-27 [Hearing: Mar 8 @ 8:00 am] To House Human Services Committee
KS SB221 Amending the revised Kansas code for care of children and the newborn infant protection act and amending certain powers and duties of the secretary for children and families. 2017-03-07 Senate Introduced
March 9, 2017
MA H2253 Relative to visitation rights of grandparents 2017-03-08 To Joint Judiciary Committee
March 10, 2017
TX HB3806 Relating to a suit for possession of or access to a child by a grandparent. Introduced
March 13, 2017
RI H5903 Visitation Rights 2017-03-10 [Hearing: Mar 15] To House Judiciary Committee.
March 20, 2017
NV AB319 Revises provisions governing the guardianship of minors. (BDR 13-502) 2017-03-17 To Assembly Judiciary Committee
March 28, 2017
AR SB40 To Amend Provisions In The Juvenile Code Concerning The Placement Of Juveniles. 2017-03-27 REPORTED CORRECTLY ENGROSSED
March 29, 2017 NC H505 Expand Grandparent Visitation Rights 2017-03-28 Filed
April 5, 2017
AL HB446 Grandparent visitation, action in circuit court, assignment to domestic relation division or judge, Sec. 30-3-4.2 am’d. 2017-04-04 To House Judiciary Committee AL SB348 Grandparent visitation, action in circuit court, assignment to domestic relation division or judge, Sec. 30-3-4.2 am’d. 2017-04-04 To Senate Judiciary Committee
May 3, 2017
NY A07553 Relates to contact by siblings in foster care, surrender, destitute child and permanency proceedings. 2017-05-02 To Assembly Children and Families Committee
NY A07574 Relates to standing of certain relatives in custody and guardianship proceedings. 2017-05-02 To Assembly Judiciary Committee
May 17, 2017
CA AB404 Foster care. 2017-05-16 To Assembly Appropriations Committee.
NY A07821 Establishes the intent of the legislature to generally defer to parental choices regarding the care, custody and control of their children; mandates that the death of a parent shall be a factor when considering a grandparent’s standing to receive visitation or custody; directs that costs be payable by an unsuccessful petitioner where a contest was brought in bad faith. 2017-05-16 To Assembly Judiciary Committee
NY S06402 Establishes the intent of the legislature to generally defer to parental choices regarding the care, custody and control of their children; mandates that the death of a parent shall be a factor when considering a grandparent’s standing to receive visitation or custody; directs that costs be payable by an unsuccessful petitioner where a contest was brought in bad faith. 2017-05-16 To Senate Children and Families Committee
May 19, 2017
MI HB4632 Human services; children’s services; interstate compact for the placement of children; revise. Creates new act. 2017-05-23 Bill Electronically Reproduced 05/18/2017

LITTLE ROCK — A state senator said Tuesday he plans to file legislation next year to make it easier for grandparents to adopt or visit their grandchildren.

LITTLE ROCK — A state senator said Tuesday he plans to file legislation next year to make it easier for grandparents to adopt or visit their grandchildren.

Sen. Gary Stubblefield, R-Branch, made the comment after hearing testimony from Saline County residents Dale and Tammy Bridges, who told the Joint Performance Review Committee that despite helping to raise their three grandchildren when they were small, they have not been allowed to see their grandchildren since December, even though they live just 4 miles away.

Dale Bridges said he and his wife have tried through the court system to secure the right to see their grandchildren, but the system has failed them. He said state law allows grandparents to petition for “reasonable” visitation rights.

“What is the definition of a reasonable amount of time? There isn’t one,” he said.

Bridges said the law should be changed to include a definition of a reasonable visitation. He said he believed one weekend a month would be reasonable, but grandparents at least should not have to go more than 90 days without seeing their grandchildren.

“Please consider helping us and all grandparents, and we hope and pray it doesn’t happen to anyone, including you all,” he said.

Stubblefield told the couple, “I have watched grandparents grieve over the same types of situations that we’re dealing with here, the injustices being done to grandparents and the preferences that’s given to drug dealers and the deadbeat dads. To be frank with you, I’m getting a little tired of it. And I will give you my word right now that I will run a piece of legislation this next session to change this.”

Joe Heard, a counselor and psychotherapist, recommended to the panel that terms in state law such as “best interest of the child,” “reasonable visitation” and “harm” be defined.

It ought to be less difficult for biological grandparents to continue their relationship with a grandchild when a biological parent dies or becomes unable to care for the child, Heard said. He also told the panel that when the fitness of grandparents to care for their grandchildren is questioned, a qualified mental-health professional should do an evaluation.

Heard also said that when grandparents are separated by a long distance from their grandchildren, they should be able to seek rights to visitation via technology.

Stubblefield, who has four grandchildren, told reporters after the hearing he did not know exactly what type of legislation he would file on the issue next year, but he said that “we’re going to make it easier for grandparents to adopt their children or at least see their grandchildren.”

He said grandparents may be more fit to care for children than the parents when, for example, the parents are involved with drugs.

“Drugs have changed the whole culture,” Stubblefield said.

congress wants a raise

Our cost of living increase doesn’t come anymore. congress passes laws to rob you but yet they are wanting more of your money in their pockets. The humane race more like we are the rat race with The government being the fattest cheese that controls how humans live.They don’t work for us, we work for them while we pay them by the laws they pass to take our money. They back up companies to allow them to charge us any amount that is different to what was agreed upon before we committed to a year to two years contract. or to the utilities that guess every other month your usage that doesn’t  balance out with credit back to you when they guess a higher usage then your actual usage Everything we need gets raised but what we have to keep up stays the same. between the lines its as if they are lining us up to be slaughtered, the only difference to that is it is overtime we are being killed so they can rob us then to be killed right away,

Foster care in Oregon: The horrors keep on coming

 

Posted: 03 Dec 2017 08:00 PM PST

 
 

The horrors happen everywhere, but they’re more likely in Oregon, a state which, year-after-year, tears apart families at a rate well above the national average.

The state of Oregon has paid $750,000 to three English-speaking foster kids who were placed in the Gresham home of Spanish-speaking foster parents and forced to wear filthy clothes smelling of urine and sleep in a windowless basement.

Two of the three brothers also were sexually abused by another, older male foster child — and they were unable to tell that to their foster parents because their foster parents didn’t speak English, said Portland attorney David Paul, who represented the brothers.

Paul said the brothers’ isolation was made even worse because child-protection workers with the Oregon Department of Human Services failed to regularly check on the boys.

The story is only the latest in a “spate,” as newspapers love to call such things, of high-profile cases involving abuse of children in Oregon foster homes, group homes and institutions.
But perhaps the most interesting, and in some ways, the most tragic, part of this story can be found toward the end:

The biological mother lost custody of her sons under allegations that she failed to protect them against another adult who posed a threat, Paul said.

The Oregon Department of Human Services then proved itself guilty of exactly the same thing.  But there’s more:

When the state finally pulled them from the Gresham foster home, the boys returned to her care and they are now living with her with no oversight from DHS, Paul said.

Which raises an obvious question: Did the children ever really need to be taken in the first place?  If there really was another adult from whom the children needed to be protected, could that other adult have been removed from the home instead of the children?
But they don’t think that way in Oregon, a state where a take-the-child-and-run mentality goes back decades, a state where year after year, children are taken away at a rate well above the national average.
And, again from the story, this is the result:

“They come back a shadow of their former selves,” Paul said.

The story also leaves one key question unanswered. These children spoke only English and were placed in home where the foster parents spoke only Spanish.
My guess is the reverse is more common. How many Spanish-speaking foster children can’t make themselves understood to their foster parents because those foster parents speak only English?  What, if anything, is DHS doing about it?  And who, if anyone, among Oregon journalists, will try to find out?

my checks have my name on it but is manage by fee’s when paying your bills. Bills are never what you were told to be. so every month your on the phone debating your bill

Even your money that comes to you is taken without it being spent by you.  This is true with my water bill and with others bills that want to guess at your usage. Every other month the water dept in Ohio county will make a guess, my actual usage runs 36 and change but when they make their guesses its comes to 50 and change. if you follow your bills you will notice there is no credit back to you. Where does your money go that you did not spend? well its ghost money that will go to a greedy corrupt business that prices something what God has given to all. They are helping themselves to your money over more to what you use that should be the money to pay the workers for making sure we have clean water, and the guess bill should stay in your packets not theirs.

As a child victim of Child Protective Services (CPS,) it has always been my passion to help victimized families. I fight corruption with my media platforms, WoC and former MAFA LLC medias. The MAFA media is why this statement is being written. Recently, “United Bikers for Unjust Causes and Tragedies” founder and president, Phil Worland, […]

via Official WoC statement regarding Mr. Worland — War on Corruption!

Yet another worker trained & Certified, by DSHS/DCFS in Early Childhood and Development Course… http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/state-agrees-to-pay-187m-to-four-children-sexually-abused-at-marysville-day-care/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=article_left_1.1 via @seattletimes Disheartening Fact for the Day: Thousands of children (low ball estimate btw) here in Washington State have been, are, and/or will be sexually abused under the care of DCFS/CPS and their Chymo afilliates. If a child was/is abused […]

via State agrees to pay $1.87M to four children sexually abused at Marysville day care — Honor the Sanctity of Thy Liberty

%d bloggers like this: