What, no comments or opinion on this? Are the sheep napping this morning?
This is a complex issue that had pretty wide-reaching effects. Although case law like this is made with regard to a specific set of facts (i.e. a particular incident or situation), it often gets applied to a broader range of cases or incidents and can have a deleterious effect in them.
As a parent, you should have a right to be present when your child (under 18) is being interviewed since they are a minor and may not understand everything that is happening. Sometimes, the child has a better understanding of what's happening than the parents so it can go either way. And the parent should not be dictating to the child about what they child saw or didn't see. Asking for a lawyer is appropriate but telling a child to lie in such a situation is not.
This concept gets more complex, however, when the parent(s) are also the suspects in the case. I had one case several years ago and long before the Oregon ruling took effect. The mom reported and then tried to cancel a call regarding her boyfriend/fiancee molesting her 8 year old daughter. My Dispatch even advised me the mother was canceling the call. I continued to the address and investigated the incident. Turns out the boyfriend/fiancee was molesting the 8 YO daughter and he even admitted it it after waiving his Miranda rights. I obviously arrested him.
Mom was "conflicted" because she was in love with the boyfriend/fiancee. Mom was still a little conflicted during the Preliminary Hearing but was supportive of the daughter. The guy pled no contest to 16 years in prison (he was facing a much longer potential sentence).
I had a serious conversation with the mom, both after the arrest and after the plea bargain (conviction). My point is that the Oregon ruling that DLG refers to can sometimes have wrongful and unintended consequences that endanger rather than help minor children.
I totally support parents' rights but at the same time believe that we should also be safeguarding the children. It's sometimes difficult to accomplish these in the same case or incident. I believe the Oregon case law was one of those examples of case law which went too far towards protecting parents' rights at the expense of negligently endangering the children's rights. It's not a black and white, one rule fits all subject BUT Oregon went too far in one direction IMHO.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
My husband is very happy about this ruling. Children are often interviewed at school because they can speak with the child without the parents present.
Children tend to clam up about abuse when the parents are right there. Also, apparently, very often school personnel are the people who notified the police and protective services about suspected abuse.
The parents' rights are not being violated anymore than a mugger's rights are violated when the victim is interviewed outside of the suspected mugger's presence.
Should a suspected mugger have the right to be present or have his attorney present when his alleged victim is being interviewed?
__________________
Proud parents of our own "Daddy's Little Girls"
I heard Jesus He drank wine and I bet we'd get along just fine.
I totally support parents" rights but at the same time believe that we should also be safeguarding the children.
+1
For the life of me i fail to understand why the mother of a child that is being molested or physically abused by a husband/boyfriend fails to report it to the police. There must be a special place in hell for scumbags who molest, rape or physically abuse kids.
There have been several recent cases in and around Lawton, OK where the mother was fully aware that the boyfriend/husband was molesting or physically abusing her child. Nothing happened until the child was killed or seriously injured.
A ten year old child recently died on Ft. Sill: That case is being investigated by the FBI and Army. Some reports say the child was starved to death.
Some neighbors of the boy knew he was being starved and did nothing. It tears me up to write this stuff.
My husband is very happy about this ruling. Children are often interviewed at school because they can speak with the child without the parents present.
Does the child understand the consequences of what he or she is saying? The parent is supposed to be responsible for that lack of maturity. Might as well give kids the right to vote and driving should have no age limit, drinking age, forget about it. This ruling is giving kids responsibilities reserved for adults.
I did not see any such authority given in this ruling. It simply struck down a particular part of this particular case. It "set it aside" doesn't read like it's now law in all circumstances. Seemed rather wordy to me and something people shouldn't hang their hat on.
In the end the case just wasted a huge amount of tax payer money, but it does go to show how the constitution isn't just the short document we think it is, it's an over 200 years long interpretation.
This court seems to be giving away one protection from illegal search and seizer after another. That authority by law is just the kind of authority needed for someone to proclaim themselves president for life, for the children's good of course. Funny how the administration and the school system were so strong for the authority.
This ruling didn't strip the parents from seeking legal redress in other ways.
I totally support parents' rights but at the same time believe that we should also be safeguarding the children.
Then protect their only protection, personal freedom.
Allowing a system to brain wash kids into turning in their parents for what the system declares an evil is the stuff dictatorships dream of. All that's needed is for a law to be passed and it's enforceable through these means. That isn't ever in the best interests of kids.
We are supposed to be ruled by law, the law of personal freedom, not the law of emotion which will give away every freedom to protect a child from harm damning them to slavery and death.
Then protect their only protection, personal freedom.
Allowing a system to brain wash kids into turning in their parents for what the system declares an evil is the stuff dictatorships dream of. All that's needed is for a law to be passed and it's enforceable through these means. That isn't ever in the best interests of kids.
We are supposed to be ruled by law, the law of personal freedom, not the law of emotion which will give away every freedom to protect a child from harm damning them to slavery and death.
Would you care to respond to my observation earlier in the thread that in these cases, the child may be a victim and the parent the perpetrator?
If you have been mugged or otherwise assaulted by someone, should the police have to refrain from questioning you until your assailant can be present?
These are not cases where the child is being questioned about something the child may have done. These are cases where the child is being questioned about sometlhing that the parents themselves may have done.
Please try to keep that in mind.
__________________
Proud parents of our own "Daddy's Little Girls"
I heard Jesus He drank wine and I bet we'd get along just fine.
Would you care to respond to my observation earlier in the thread that in these cases, the child may be a victim and the parent the perpetrator?
If you have been mugged or otherwise assaulted by someone, should the police have to refrain from questioning you until your assailant can be present?
These are not cases where the child is being questioned about something the child may have done. These are cases where the child is being questioned about sometlhing that the parents themselves may have done.
Please try to keep that in mind.
In theory they are. The child doesn't understand it's rights and giving this authority to people who have proven many times over that some of them are predators with a social agenda is dangerous.
The children do not understand the implications of what they are saying and your assumption that the questioners are all benevolent is extremely naive. They have already committed the same crimes your emotionally upset about.
Here's one, a guy in the local paper was railing against another LTE for being so rude and not tipping 20% as he and his wife eat out 4-5 times a week and believe that to be what everyone else should do. The way it was written I thought the guy sounded like an owner who's employees had complained and he shifted the blame to the ungrateful customer. He sounded just like a public employee. I googled his name.
Giving these people the authority to question children without first talking to a higher authority (which keeps them in check) is a very bad idea. Do it if you must knowing full well you are violating the law to save a child and willing to accept the consequences, but don't make it legal, that's just as bad.
Giving these people the authority to question children without first talking to a higher authority (which keeps them in check) is a very bad idea. Do it if you must knowing full well you are violating the law to save a child and willing to accept the consequences, but don't make it legal, that's just as bad.
You're not getting the point. The "higher authority" is the person who may have victimized the child.
I asked if we should refrain from interviewing a mugging victim until the suspected mugger is present. Why won't you answer that?
Well it is legal and it's going to stay legal. The only people who would object to children who may have been abused being interviewed away from their parents would be someone on the side of the abusers or someone who just doesn't understand this issue. I hope that's not you.
By the way, you probably don't know this, but there is a protocol that must be followed in this type of interview. It's designed to avoid putting ideas into the child's mind or getting them to say what you want to hear. This has happened in the past. Failure to follow this protocol will get your case thrown out.
__________________
Proud parents of our own "Daddy's Little Girls"
I heard Jesus He drank wine and I bet we'd get along just fine.
First, understand that the 4th Amendment protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects". Children are not mentioned. As is the case here, the person, their house, their papers, and their effects were neither searched nor seized. The only way to stretch this to children would be to classify them as property of the parent. If that were the case, then children would essentially have the same legal rights as private property, i.e. subject largely to the will of the owner (parent).
If there is a violation of the 4th Amendment, it would only be the right of the child's to assert, not the parent. Since the goal was not seek prosecution against the child, but to try and ascertain what crimes were being committed against the child, it would be unreasonable to allow the parent, either the perpetrator or the enabler, to conceal potential testimonial evidence by vicariously asserting rights through the child.
Falcon, you are right on the money. I have seen many cases where a child was abused (usually by boyfriend or stepdad), and it has always surprised me how many times the mom has always sided against the child. Sometimes even after the perp has been sent to prison, mom has seen all the overwhelming evidence, and CPS has taken the children because mom does not provide them a safe home. She is either trying to keep in contact with perp, or finds someone else that puts the kids in the same position they were before. There are just sometimes listening to those interviews and hearing the details that you know there is no way in hell that child is making it up. Yet mom still refuses to believe.
Nodog:
Quote:
The children do not understand the implications of what they are saying and your assumption that the questioners are all benevolent is extremely naive. They have already committed the same crimes your emotionally upset about.
You are off the reservation on this issue anyway, but this?
__________________
You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride!
No warrant needed...
