Are the courts actually applying a preponderance standard?

General chat area for anything that doesn't fit in elsewhere.

Moderators: family_man, LindaJM

Lysander
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2015 8:15 pm

Are the courts actually applying a preponderance standard?

Postby Lysander » Sat Oct 31, 2015 8:20 am

I was wondering if the courts are actually applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, or if they are (illegally) erring on the side of finding kids dependent and neglected whom the evidence hasn't proved would've been, more likely than not, exposed to injurious environments, etc. by their parents? In my case, my lawyer kept saying that the state had brought up a lot of possibilities, but the standard of proof was PROBABILITY, not POSSIBILITY. Maybe the jury concluded that it really was probable that I wasn't a safe person to leave a kid with, but I wonder. The county attorney's questioning was mostly along the lines of, "Okay, well, what if x happens, and then, God forbid, y happens? Isn't there a possibility that in that sort of situation, z might happen?"

I hear about cases where, for example, a guy slapped his daughter and she was found dependent and neglected on that basis. If it was an isolated instance, I personally wouldn't deem that as meaning that he would likely be injurious to his daughter in the future. I would think he could be let off with a warning and probably learn his lesson without the state needing to intervene.

It seems to me that if evidence shows there's a 49% chance that a parent will cause severe injury to his child, the law requires that the court dismiss a petition of dependency and neglect. But I'm not sure a court would actually apply the standard in that way.

Return to “Round Table”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests