References to -- allegations

Post and discuss your research and resources.

Moderators: family_man, LindaJM

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

References to -- allegations

Postby Marina » Sun Jul 02, 2006 7:18 pm

References to -- allegations

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Sun Jul 02, 2006 7:20 pm

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA



No. 321A01



FILED: 16 JULY 2003



In the Matter of:


JOANIE STUMBO, STEVEN STUMBO, SCOTT STUMBO, UNKNOWN STUMBO



http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=a ... 1&.intl=us

Against this backdrop, the petition in the present case alleged only that DSS “received a report alleging neglect of the above named children.” The petition did not mention the nature of the actual allegations that were reported. As noted by the majority, the trial court did not allow evidence regarding the relevant circumstances and events surrounding the reported allegation. Instead, the trial court determined that such evidence did not relate to whether the Stumbos had a “lawful excuse” for refusing to cooperate with the investigation and that the purpose of the hearing was to determine only whether there was any interference in the investigation regardless of (1) whether the initiation of the investigation was justified, or (2) whether any of the Stumbos' constitutional rights were implicated by the government's investigatory protocol.

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Sun Jul 02, 2006 7:34 pm

In theUnited States Court of AppealsFor the Seventh Circuit____________Nos. 03-3071 & 03-3191
JEFFDUPUY, BELINDADUPUY,PILARBERMAN, et al.,Plaintiffs-Appellants,Cross-Appellees,v.BRYANSAMUELS, Director,Illinois Department of Children
and Family Services,Defendant-Appellee,Cross-Appellant.____________Appeals from the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.No. 97 C 4199—Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, Judge.____________ARGUEDJUNE3, 2004—DECIDEDFEBRUARY 3,2005____________Before BAUER, RIPPLEand MANION, Circuit Judges.RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Jeff Dupuy, Belinda Dupuy andPilar Berman brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on
behalf of a class of persons who had been indicated as
perpetrators of child abuse or neglect in reports maintained
on the State Central Register of the Illinois Department of
Children and Family Services (“DCFS”). The plaintiffs
sought injunctive relief, alleging that the DCFS procedures
for investigating and disclosing allegations of child abuse...

http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=a ... 1&.intl=us


Each abuse and
neglect allegation is assigned to one of three retention
categories: allegations of death of a child and/or sexual
penetration are retained for fifty years; allegations involving
serious physical injury, sexual molestation or sex-
ual exploitation of a child are retained for twenty years; and
all other allegations are retained for five years. 89 Ill.
Admin. Code § 431.30. After the expiration of the retention
period, the indicated report must be expunged, unless
another report is received involving the same child, his
sibling or offspring, or a child in the care of the persons
responsible for the child’s welfare.

- - - - -

In all hearings since March 1, 1996, DCFS
has been required to prove the child abuse and neglect
allegations by a preponderance of the evidence.

- - - - - - - -

Further, the district court addressed the plaintiffs’ right toreply to allegations of child abuse or neglect against them.

- - - - - - - -

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the loss of
foster care payments, which results from allegations of child
abuse or neglect, is equal in effect to a child care worker’s
losing his job due to an indicated finding.

- - - - - - -

The district court’s injunction requires DCFS to pro-vide child care workers (upon request) an opportunity to
respond to the allegations before DCFS indicates and
discloses a report. The hallmark of due process is an
opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a
meaningful manner.

- - - - - - -

On the other hand, DCFS needs to respond quickly to
allegations of child abuse or neglect.

- - - - - - -

DCFS
would have to make a significantly more specific showing
that affording a person a limited opportunity to respond to
the allegations against him would impose significant
administrative burdens, excessive costs or an intolerable
delay in responding to reports of child abuse.

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Sun Jul 02, 2006 7:43 pm

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA



No. 321A01



FILED: 16 JULY 2003



In the Matter of:


JOANIE STUMBO, STEVEN STUMBO, SCOTT STUMBO, UNKNOWN STUMBO




http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=a ... 1&.intl=us

In the case at bar, there was no testimony by Ms. Lowery at the hearing and no written report by CCDSS regarding whether the anonymous caller's allegations rose to a level sufficient to constitute a report of neglect and require the statutorily mandated investigation.

- - - - - - -

The procedures for investigating child abuse allegations in North Carolina are a matter of critical public interest. According to the State, DSS received 102,158 reports of alleged abuse, neglect, and dependency during 2001.

- - - - - - - -

Thus, the central issue in this case is whether, when conducting a routine, non-emergency investigation, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 20 of the North Carolina Constitution allow a director to secure a noninterference order without particularized allegations of abuse or neglect supported by corroborative evidence.

- - - - - - - -

Against this backdrop, the petition in the present case alleged only that DSS “received a report alleging neglect of the above named children.” The petition did not mention the nature of the actual allegations that were reported. As noted by the majority, the trial court did not allow evidence regarding the relevant circumstances and events surrounding the reported allegation. Instead, the trial court determined that such evidence did not relate to whether the Stumbos had a “lawful excuse” for refusing to cooperate with the investigation and that the purpose of the hearing was to determine only whether there was any interference in the investigation regardless of (1) whether the initiation of the investigation was justified, or (2) whether any of the Stumbos' constitutional rights were implicated by the government's investigatory protocol.
- - - - - - - -

Unfounded allegations of child abuse unfairly stigmatize individuals, clearly making them “unpopular” within their local community. Thus, it is critical that the government bring forward particularized allegations supported by at least some evidence before carrying out the more intrusive aspects of its investigatory protocol.
- - - - - - - -

The trial court should have considered the nature, circumstances, and veracity of the allegations, as well as any underlying facts and surrounding circumstances the reporter may have provided. Because the reasonable grounds standard is less demanding than probable cause, it necessarily raises the possibility, however remote,that an aberrant government official, detached from the moorings of the warrant and probable cause requirements, might be tempted to cloak a criminal investigation under the shroud of a child abuse inquiry.
- - - - - - - -

They must provide the trial court with particularized allegations supported by evidence. N.C. Const. art. I, § 20. When such allegations are anonymous, the trial court should carefully scrutinize DSS' proffered justification for search or seizure.
- - - - - - - - - -

The trial court should have considered the allegations directed against the Stumbos as well as any evidence tending to show that such allegations were unfounded in determining whether the government should be permitted to enter a private home over the objections of its owner, or to interview the children in private without the consent of their parents.

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:54 pm

HHS Child Welfare Policy Manual

2.1H CAPTA, Assurances and Requirements, Notification of Allegations

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/j2ee/programs/cb ... ?citID=353

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Fri Jul 07, 2006 5:42 am

206 W. Va. 1, 521 S.E.2d 173

Supreme Court Of Appeals Of West Virginia

IN RE: BILLY JOE M. AND JASON M.,
No. 25888
Submitted: June 1, 1999
Filed: July 15, 1999


http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=t ... 1&.intl=us

The lower court found the following conditions in existence at the time of the filing of the August 1998 petition in Nicholas County: garbage including rotten food scattered through the house; animal urination and defecation in the house; matted hair and dirty clothing on the children; children eating from garbage cans; inability of the children to perform basic hygiene; and Billy Joe's ear compacted with foreign items including toe nails, plastic, and sand. Billy Joe also vomited in the car of a transportation provider for DHHR, and his vomit contained sticks, pine needles, and cotton balls.

- - - - - - - -

During the December 4, 1998, hearing, the lower court received the testimony of Mr. Mark Abbott, the child protective services worker assigned to this case in Nicholas County. Mr. Abbott testified regarding the children's behavior problems and acting out in the foster home. According to Mr. Abbott's testimony, the children urinated in trash cans, behind closed doors, and in hampers. Mr. Abbott indicated that the children spat on the walls during their first few weeks in foster care and that one of the children saved his feces in a can. The children also destroyed property at their foster home, including video tapes and a garden. Jason reported suicidal thoughts, and Billy Joe reported homicidal thoughts. Each child was eventually placed, separately, in in-patient psychiatric care.
- - - - - - -

Unfortunately for these children, their case was fraught with difficulties long before the commencement of the visitation issue which is now before this Court. The children have been left with the parents for a lengthy period of time, indeed all the formative years of their lives, and have formed a close emotional bond with their parents. Now they are being “rescued” into an uncertain future - no permanent placement and no one definitely committed to them.
- - - - - - - -

In the present case, based primarily upon the parents' intellectual incapacity, the needs of the children have not been met, and the resulting living conditions constitute neglect. However, the social services and legal systems have left these children with their parents for eleven and twelve years, with resultant strong emotional bonds. In such circumstances, the emotional bonds between the parents and child(ren) should be closely evaluated to determine the appropriate course of action. We therefore remand this matter for implementation of permanency plans and additional evaluation regarding the potential for successful post-termination visitation, both after the permanency plans are implemented and in the interim.

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Defending False allegations

Postby Marina » Mon Jul 24, 2006 11:19 am

Defending False allegations

http://www.allencowling.com/falseacc.htm


Return to “Research Resources”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests