Child-abuse claims vs. parents' rights

Supreme Court mulls whether to take a suit accusing Illinois of forcing families to give up rights.

Page 1 of 3

Reporter head shot

This feature requires a newer version of Macromedia Flash Player and javascript-enabled browser.

Get Flash Player

Reporter Warren Richey discusses incidents that drove parents to sue Illinois for forcing them to give up their rights.

The US Supreme Court is being asked to determine whether procedures used in Illinois to investigate allegations of child abuse or neglect violate the fundamental rights of parents.

The case arises at a legal crossroads between the government's interest in moving quickly to safeguard children from abuse or neglect and the right of parents to raise and maintain a family without undue government interference.

The high court is scheduled to consider whether to take up the case, Dupuy v. McEwen, at its private conference Thursday. An order agreeing or refusing to hear the appeal could come as early as Monday.

State procedures to investigate allegations of child abuse have been a topic of national concern after more than 400 children from a polygamist group's ranch in west Texas were taken from their parents and held for nearly two months in foster care. The Texas Supreme Court later ordered state officials to return the children to their parents while the investigation continues.

At issue in the Illinois case is whether state officials can use the potential threat of placing children in foster care as a means to pressure parents to forfeit their parental rights.

Agents with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) routinely advise parents in the initial stage of an abuse investigation that their children may be taken into state custody unless the parents agree to a state-imposed "safety plan." Such plans can require the accused parent or parents to leave the home immediately and cease all unsupervised contact with their children for the duration of the investigation, according to a lawsuit filed by a group of Illinois parents.

Imposition of the safety plan can be authorized by a single unconfirmed tip received via an anonymous child-abuse hot line, the suit says.

In contrast, to authorize the removal of children from their parents, authorities must be able to present enough evidence to convince a judge that there is "reasonable suspicion" that a child has been abused or is in imminent danger.

Illinois officials bypass this evidentiary standard and judicial oversight by giving parents an offer they can't refuse, according to the lawsuit.

The offer: Agree to a safety plan or your children may be taken away. Parents are not given an opportunity to know the substance and source of an abuse allegation, nor are they given an opportunity to challenge the safety plan before a neutral decisionmaker.

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | Next Page

Get Monitor stories by e-mail:
(Your e-mail address will be protected by csmonitor.com's tough privacy policy.)

In Pictures
Fireworks: A party in the sky

ELECTION '08 Patchwork Nation
The American voter beyond red and blue

FISHERIES Empty Oceans Series
The sea is no longer so vast.


Daily podcast

Monitor Reports

Discussions with Monitor reporters from around the world


Today

Peter Grier

Honduras has two presidents, but no solution to the country's political crisis.




Making a difference
Making a Difference

What happens when ordinary people decide to pay it forward? Extraordinary change. See how individuals are making a difference, finding solutions, overcoming adversity, and giving back globally.

Jeremy Gilley, founder of the nonprofit Peace One Day, talks with students at Cambridge Rindge and Latin High School in Cambridge, Mass.

Melanie Stetson Freeman/Staff

People making a difference: Jeremy Gilley

This actor and filmmaker envisions that world peace begins with just one day of peace.