In case of Santosky v. Kramer, 455 US 745, Supreme Court reviewed a case when Department of Social Services removed two younger children from their natural parents only because the parents had been previously found negligent toward their oldest daughter. When the third child was only three days old, DSS transferred him to a foster home on the ground that immediate removal was necessary to avoid imminent danger to his life or health. The Supreme Court vacated previous judgment and stated: "Before a State may sever completely and irrevocably the rights of parents in their natural child, due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence. But until the State proves parental unfitness, the child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship".
Also District of Columbia Court of Appeals conclude that the lower trial court erred in rejecting the relative custodial arrangement selected by the natural mother who tried to preserve her relationship with the child. The previous judgment granting the foster mother's adoption petition was reversed, and the case remanded to the trial court to vacate the orders granting adoption and denying custody, and to enter an order granting custody to the child's relative.
U.S. Supreme Court
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982)
Santosky v. Kramer
No. 80-5889
Argued November 10, 1981
Decided March 24, 1982
455 U.S. 745
CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION, SUPREME COURT OF
NEW YORK, THIRD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Syllabus
Under New York law, the State may terminate, over parental objection, the rights of parents in their natural child upon a finding that the child is "permanently neglected." The New York Family Court Act (§ 622) requires that only a "fair preponderance of the evidence" support that finding. Neglect proceedings were brought in Family Court to terminate petitioners' rights as natural parents in their three children. Rejecting petitioners' challenge to the constitutionality of § 622's "fair preponderance of the evidence" standard, the Family Court weighed the evidence under that standard and found permanent neglect. After a subsequent dispositional hearing, the Family Court ruled that the best interests of the children required permanent termination of petitioners' custody. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court affirmed, and the New York Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners' appeal to that court.
Held:
1. Process is constitutionally due a natural parent at a state-initiated parental rights termination proceeding. Pp. 455 U. S. 752-757.
(a) The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care custody, and management of their child is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. A parental rights termination proceeding interferes with that fundamental liberty interest. When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures. Pp. 455 U. S. 752-754.
(b) The nature of the process due in parental rights termination proceedings turns on a balancing of three factors: the private interests affected by the proceedings; the risk of error created by the State's chosen procedure; and the countervailing governmental interest supporting use of the challenged procedure. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 424 U. S. 335. In any given proceeding, the minimum standard of proof tolerated by the due process requirement reflects not only the weight of the public and
Page 455 U. S. 746
private interests affected, but also a societal judgment about how the risk of error should be distributed between the litigants. The minimum standard is a question of federal law which this Court may resolve. Retrospective case-by-case review cannot preserve fundamental fairness when a class of proceedings is governed by a constitutionally defective evidentiary standard. Pp. 455 U. S. 754-757.
2. The "fair preponderance of the evidence" standard prescribed by § 622 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 455 U. S. 758-768.
(a) The balance of private interests affected weighs heavily against use of such a standard in parental rights termination proceedings, since the private interest affected is commanding, and the threatened loss is permanent. Once affirmed on appeal, a New York decision terminating parental rights is final and irrevocable. Pp. 455 U. S. 758-761.
(b) A preponderance standard does not fairly allocate the risk of an erroneous factfinding between the State and the natural parents. In parental rights termination proceedings, which bear many of the indicia of a criminal trial, numerous factors combine to magnify the risk of erroneous factfinding. Coupled with the preponderance standard, these factors create a significant prospect of erroneous termination of parental rights. A standard of proof that allocates the risk of error nearly equally between an erroneous failure to terminate, which leaves the child in an uneasy status quo, and an erroneous termination, which unnecessarily destroys the natural family, does not reflect properly the relative severity of these two outcomes. Pp. 455 U. S. 761-766.
(c) A standard of proof more strict than preponderance of the evidence is consistent with the two state interests at stake in parental rights termination proceedings -- a parens patriae interest in preserving and promoting the child's welfare and a fiscal and administrative interest in reducing the cost and burden of such proceedings. Pp. 455 U. S. 766-768.
3. Before a State may sever completely and irrevocably the rights of parents in their natural child, due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence. A "clear and convincing evidence" standard adequately conveys to the factfinder the level of subjective certainty about his factual conclusions necessary to satisfy due process. Determination of the precise burden equal to or greater than that standard is a matter of state law properly left to state legislatures and state courts. Pp. 455 U. S. 768-770.
75 App.Div.2d 910, 427 N.Y.S.2d 319, vacated and remanded.
BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, J., filed a
Page 455 U. S. 747
dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 455 U. S. 770.
JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under New York law, the State may terminate, over parental objection, the rights of parents in their natural child upon a finding that the child is "permanently neglected." N.Y.Soc.Serv.Law §§ 384-b.4.(d), 384-b.7.(a) (McKinney Supp.1981-1982) (Soc.Serv.Law). The New York Family Court Act § 622 (McKinney 1975 and Supp.1981-1982) (Fam.Ct.Act) requires that only a "fair preponderance of the evidence" support that finding. Thus, in New York, the factual certainty required to extinguish the parent-child relationship is no greater than that necessary to award money damages in an ordinary civil action.
Today we hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment demands more than this. Before a State may sever completely and irrevocably the rights of parents in
Page 455 U. S. 748
their natural child, due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence.
I
A
New York authorizes its officials to remove a child temporarily from his or her home if the child appears "neglected," within the meaning of Art. 10 of the Family Court Act. See §§ 1012(f), 1021-1029. Once removed, a child under the age of 18 customarily is placed "in the care of an authorized agency," Soc.Serv.Law § 384-b.7.(a), usually a state institution or a foster home. At that point, "the state's first obligation is to help the family with services to . . . reunite it. . . ." § 384-b.1.(a)(iii). But if convinced that "positive, nurturing parent-child relationships no longer exist," § 384-b.1.(b), the State may initiate "permanent neglect" proceedings to free the child for adoption.
The State bifurcates its permanent neglect proceeding into "factfinding" and "dispositional" hearings. Fam.Ct.Act §§ 622, 623. At the factfinding stage, the State must prove that the child has been "permanently neglected," as defined by Fam.Ct.Act §§ 614.1.(a)-(d) and Soc.Serv.Law § 384-b.7.(a). See Fam.Ct.Act § 622. The Family Court judge then determines at a subsequent dispositional hearing what placement would serve the child's best interests. §§ 623, 631.
At the factfinding hearing, the State must establish, among other things, that, for more than a year after the child entered state custody, the agency "made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship." Fam.Ct.Act §§ 614.1.(c), 611. The State must further prove that, during that same period, the child's natural parents failed
"substantially and continuously or repeatedly to maintain contact with or plan for the future of the child although physically and financially able to do so."
§ 614.1.(d). Should the State support its allegations by "a fair preponderance of the evidence," § 622, the child may be declared permanently neglected.
Page 455 U. S. 749
§ 611. That declaration empowers the Family Court judge to terminate permanently the natural parents' rights in the child. §§ 631(c), 634. Termination denies the natural parents physical custody, as well as the rights ever to visit, communicate with, or regain custody of, the child. [Footnote 1]
New York's permanent neglect statute provides natural parents with certain procedural protections. [Footnote 2] But New York permits its officials to establish "permanent neglect" with less proof than most States require. Thirty-five States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands currently specify a higher standard of proof, in parental rights termination proceedings, than a "fair preponderance of the evidence." [Footnote 3] The only analogous federal statute of which we are aware
Page 455 U. S. 750
permits termination of parental rights solely upon "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt." Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, Pub.L. 95-608, § 102(f), 92 Stat. 3072, 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f) (1976 ed., Supp. IV). The question here is whether
Page 455 U. S. 751
New York's "fair preponderance of the evidence" standard is constitutionally sufficient.
B
Petitioners John Santosky II and Annie Santosky are the natural parents of Tina and John III. In November, 1973, after incidents reflecting parental neglect, respondent Kramer, Commissioner of the Ulster County Department of Social Services, initiated a neglect proceeding under Fam.Ct.Act § 1022 and removed Tina from her natural home. About 10 months later, he removed John III and placed him with foster parents. On the day John was taken, Annie Santosky gave birth to a third child, Jed. When Jed was only three days old, respondent transferred him to a foster home on the ground that immediate removal was necessary to avoid imminent danger to his life or health.
In October, 1978, respondent petitioned the Ulster County Family Court to terminate petitioners' parental rights in the three children. [Footnote 4] Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the "fair preponderance of the evidence" standard specified in Fam.Ct.Act § 622. The Family Court Judge rejected this constitutional challenge, App. 29 30, and weighed the evidence under the statutory standard. While acknowledging that the Santoskys had maintained contact with their children, the judge found those visits, "at best, superficial and devoid of any real emotional content." Id. at 21. After
Page 455 U. S. 752
deciding that the agency had made "diligent efforts' to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship," id. at 30, he concluded that the Santoskys were incapable, even with public assistance, of planning for the future of their children. Id. at 33-37. The judge later held a dispositional hearing and ruled that the best interests of the three children required permanent termination of the Santoskys' custody. [Footnote 5] Id. at 39.
Petitioners appealed, again contesting the constitutionality of § 622's standard of proof. [Footnote 6] The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed, holding application of the preponderance of the evidence standard "proper and constitutional." In re John AA, 75 App.Div.2d 910, 427 N.Y.S.2d 319, 320 (1980). That standard, the court reasoned, "recognizes and seeks to balance rights possessed by the child . . . with those of the natural parents. . . ." Ibid.
The New York Court of Appeals then dismissed petitioners' appeal to that court "upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved." App. 55. We granted certiorari to consider petitioners' constitutional claim. 450 U.S. 993 (1981).
II
Last Term, in Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U. S. 18 (1981), this Court, by a 5-4 vote, held that the
Page 455 U. S. 753
Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not require the appointment of counsel for indigent parents in every parental status termination proceeding. The case casts light, however, on the two central questions her -- whether process is constitutionally due a natural parent at a State's parental rights termination proceeding, and, if so, what process is due.
In Lassiter, it was
"not disputed that state intervention to terminate the relationship between [a parent] and [the] child must be accomplished by procedures meeting the requisites of the Due Process Clause."
Id. at 452 U. S. 37 (first dissenting opinion); see id. at 452 U. S. 24-32 (opinion of the Court); id. at 452 U. S. 59-60 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). See also Little v. Streater, 452 U. S. 1, 452 U. S. 13 (1981). The absence of dispute reflected this Court's historical recognition that freedom of personal choice in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U. S. 246, 434 U. S. 255 (1978); Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U. S. 816, 431 U. S. 845 (1977); Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 431 U. S. 499 (1977) (plurality opinion); Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U. S. 632, 414 U. S. 639-640 (1974); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 405 U. S. 651-652 (1972); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 321 U. S. 166 (1944); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 268 U. S. 534-535 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 262 U. S. 399 (1923).
The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain a vital interest in preventing the irretrievable destruction of their family life. If anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have a more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. When the State moves to
Page 455 U. S. 754
destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures. [Footnote 7]
In Lassiter, the Court and three dissenters agreed that the nature of the process due in parental rights termination proceedings turns on a balancing of the "three distinct factors" specified in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 424 U. S. 335 (1976): the private interests affected by the proceeding; the risk of error created by the State's chosen procedure; and the countervailing governmental interest supporting use of the challenged procedure. See 452 U.S. at 452 U. S. 27-31; id. at 452 U. S. 37-48 (first dissenting opinion). But see id. at 452 U. S. 59-60 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). While the respective Lassiter opinions disputed whether those factors should be weighed against a presumption disfavoring appointed counsel for one not threatened with loss of physical liberty, compare 452 U.S. at 452 U. S. 31-32, with id. at 452 U. S. 41, and n. 8 (first dissenting opinion), that concern is irrelevant here. Unlike the Court's right-to-counsel rulings, its decisions concerning constitutional burdens of proof have not turned on any presumption favoring any particular standard. To the contrary, the Court has engaged in a straightforward consideration of the factors identified in Eldridge to determine whether a particular standard of proof in a particular proceeding satisfies due process.
In Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S. 418 (1979), the Court, by a unanimous vote of the participating Justices, declared:
"The function of a standard of proof, as that concept is embodied in the Due Process Clause and in the realm of factfinding, is to
Page 455 U. S. 755
'instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.'"
Id. at 441 U. S. 423, quoting In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 397 U. S. 370 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). Addington teaches that, in any given proceeding, the minimum standard of proof tolerated by the due process requirement reflects not only the weight of the private and public interests affected, but also a societal judgment about how the risk of error should be distributed between the litigants.
Thus, while private parties may be interested intensely in a civil dispute over money damages, application of a "fair preponderance of the evidence" standard indicates both society's "minimal concern with the outcome," and a conclusion that the litigants should "share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion." 441 U.S. at 441 U. S. 423. When the State brings a criminal action to deny a defendant liberty or life, however,
"the interests of the defendant are of such magnitude that historically, and without any explicit constitutional requirement, they have been protected by standards of proof designed to exclude, as nearly as possible, the likelihood of an erroneous judgment."
Ibid. The stringency of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard bespeaks the "weight and gravity" of the private interest affected, id. at 441 U. S. 427, society's interest in avoiding erroneous convictions, and a judgment that those interests together require that "society impos[e] almost the entire risk of error upon itself." Id. at 441 U. S. 424. See also In re Winship, 397 U.S. at 397 U. S. 372 (Harlan, J., concurring).
The "minimum requirements [of procedural due process] being a matter of federal law, they are not diminished by the fact that the State may have specified its own procedures that it may deem adequate for determining the preconditions to adverse official action."
Vitek v. Jones, 445 U. S. 480, 445 U. S. 491 (1980). See also Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., ante at 455 U. S. 432. Moreover, the degree of proof required in a particular type of proceeding "is the kind of question which has
Page 455 U. S. 756
traditionally been left to the judiciary to resolve."
Woodby v. INS, 385 U. S. 276, 385 U. S. 284 (1966). [Footnote 8]
"In cases involving individual rights, whether criminal or civil, '[t]he standard of proof [at a minimum] reflects the value society places on individual liberty.'"
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. at 441 U. S. 425, quoting Tippett v. Maryland, 436 F.2d 1153, 1166 (CA4 1971) (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part), cert. dism'd sub nom. Murel v. Baltimore City Criminal Court, 407 U. S. 355 (1972).
This Court has mandated an intermediate standard of proof -- "clear and convincing evidence" -- when the individual interests at stake in a state proceeding are both "particularly important" and "more substantial than mere loss of money." Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. at 441 U. S. 424. Notwithstanding "the state's civil labels and good intentions,'" id. at 441 U. S. 427, quoting In re Winship, 397 U.S. at 397 U. S. 365-366, the Court has deemed this level of certainty necessary to preserve fundamental fairness in a variety of government-initiated proceedings that threaten the individual involved with "a significant deprivation of liberty" or "stigma." 441 U.S. at 441 U. S. 425, 426. See, e.g., Addington v. Texas, supra, (civil commitment); Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. at 385 U. S. 285 (deportation); Chaunt v. United States, 364 U. S. 350, 364 U. S. 353 (1960) (denaturalization);
Page 455 U. S. 757
Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118, 320 U. S. 125, 320 U. S. 159 (1943) (denaturalization).
In Lassiter, to be sure, the Court held that fundamental fairness may be maintained in parental rights termination proceedings even when some procedures are mandated only on a case-by-case basis, rather than through rules of general application. 452 U.S. at 452 U. S. 31-32 (natural parent's right to court-appointed counsel should be determined by the trial court, subject to appellate review). But this Court never has approved case-by-case determination of the proper standard of proof for a given proceeding. Standards of proof, like other
"procedural due process rules[,] are shaped by the risk of error inherent in the truthfinding process as applied to the generality of cases, not the rare exceptions."
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. at 424 U. S. 344 (emphasis added). Since the litigants and the factfinder must know at the outset of a given proceeding how the risk of error will be allocated, the standard of proof necessarily must be calibrated in advance. Retrospective case-by-case review cannot preserve fundamental fairness when a class of proceedings is governed by a constitutionally defective evidentiary standard. [Footnote 9]
Page 455 U. S. 758
III
In parental rights termination proceedings, the private interest affected is commanding; the risk of error from using a preponderance standard is substantial; and the countervailing governmental interest favoring that standard is comparatively slight. Evaluation of the three Eldridge factors compels the conclusion that use of a "fair preponderance of the evidence" standard in such proceedings is inconsistent with due process.
A
"The extent to which procedural due process must be afforded the recipient is influenced by the extent to which he may be 'condemned to suffer grievous loss.'"
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, 397 U. S. 262-263 (1970), quoting Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123, 341 U. S. 168 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). Whether the loss threatened by a particular type of proceeding is sufficiently grave to warrant more than average certainty on the part of the factfinder turns on both the nature of the private interest threatened and the permanency of the threatened loss.
Lassiter declared it "plain beyond the need for multiple citation" that a natural parent's "desire for, and right to, the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children'" is an interest far more precious than any property
Page 455 U. S. 759
right. 452 U.S. at 452 U. S. 27, quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. at 405 U. S. 651. When the State initiates a parental rights termination proceeding, it seeks not merely to infringe that fundamental liberty interest, but to end it.
"If the State prevails, it will have worked a unique kind of deprivation. . . . A parent's interest in the accuracy and justice of the decision to terminate his or her parental status is, therefore, a commanding one."
452 U.S. at 452 U. S. 27.
In government-initiated proceedings to determine juvenile delinquency, In re Winship, supra; civil commitment, Addington v. Texas, supra; deportation, Woodby v. INS, supra; and denaturalization, Chaunt v. United States, supra, and Schneiderman v. United States, supra, this Court has identified losses of individual liberty sufficiently serious to warrant imposition of an elevated burden of proof. Yet juvenile delinquency adjudications, civil commitment, deportation, and denaturalization, at least to a degree, are all reversible official actions. Once affirmed on appeal, a New York decision terminating parental rights is final and irrevocable. See n 1, supra. Few forms of state action are both so severe and so irreversible.
Thus, the first Eldridge factor -- the private interest affected -- weighs heavily against use of the preponderance standard at a state-initiated permanent neglect proceeding. We do not deny that the child and his foster parents are also deeply interested in the outcome of that contest. But at the factfinding stage of the New York proceeding, the focus emphatically is not on them.
The factfinding does not purport -- and is not intended -- to balance the child's interest in a normal family home against the parents' interest in raising the child. Nor does it purport to determine whether the natural parents or the foster parents would provide the better home. Rather, the factfinding hearing pits the State directly against the parents. The State alleges that the natural parents are at fault. Fam.Ct.Act § 614.1.(d). The questions disputed and decided are
Page 455 U. S. 760
what the State did -- "made diligent efforts," § 614.1.(c) -- and what the natural parents did not do -- "maintain contact with or plan for the future of the child." § 614.1.(d). The State marshals an array of public resources to prove its case and disprove the parents' case. Victory by the State not only makes termination of parental rights possible; it entails a judicial determination that the parents are unfit to raise their own children. [Footnote 10]
At the factfinding, the State cannot presume that a child and his parents are adversaries. After the State has established parental unfitness at that initial proceeding, the court may assume at the dispositional stage that the interests of the child and the natural parents do diverge. See Fam.Ct.Act § 631 (judge shall make his order "solely on the basis of the best interests of the child," and thus has no obligation to consider the natural parents' rights in selecting dispositional alternatives). But until the State proves parental unfitness, the child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship. [Footnote 11] Thus,
Page 455 U. S. 761
at the factfinding, the interests of the child and his natural parents coincide to favor use of error-reducing procedures.
However substantial the foster parents' interests may be, cf. Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. at 431 U. S. 845-847, they are not implicated directly in the factfinding stage of a state-initiated permanent neglect proceeding against the natural parents. If authorized, the foster parents may pit their interests directly against those of the natural parents by initiating their own permanent neglect proceeding. Fam.Ct.Act § 1055(d); Soc.Serv.Law §§ 3846.3(b), 392.7.(c). Alternatively, the foster parents can make their case for custody at the dispositional stage of a state-initiated proceeding, where the judge already has decided the issue of permanent neglect and is focusing on the placement that would serve the child's best interests. Fam.Ct.Act §§ 623, 631. For the foster parents, the State's failure to prove permanent neglect may prolong the delay and uncertainty until their foster child is freed for adoption. But for the natural parents, a finding of permanent neglect can cut off forever their rights in their child. Given this disparity of consequence, we have no difficulty finding that the balance of private interests strongly favors heightened procedural protections.
B
Under Mathews v. Eldridge, we next must consider both the risk of erroneous deprivation of private interests resulting from use of a "fair preponderance" standard and the likelihood that a higher evidentiary standard would reduce that risk. See 424 U.S. at 424 U. S. 335. Since the factfinding phase of a permanent neglect proceeding is an adversary contest between the State and the natural parents, the relevant question is whether a preponderance standard fairly allocates the risk of an erroneous factfinding between these two parties.
Page 455 U. S. 762
In New York, the factfinding stage of a state-initiated permanent neglect proceeding bears many of the indicia of a criminal trial. Cf. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. at 452 U. S. 42-44 (first dissenting opinion); Meltzer v. C. Buck LeCraw & Co., 402 U.S. 954, 959 (1971) (Black, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). See also dissenting opinion, post at 455 U. S. 777-779 (describing procedures employed at factfinding proceeding). The Commissioner of Social Services charges the parents with permanent neglect. They are served by summons. Fam.Ct.Act §§ 614, 616, 617. The factfinding hearing is conducted pursuant to formal rules of evidence. § 624. The State, the parents, and the child are all represented by counsel. §§ 249, 262. The State seeks to establish a series of historical facts about the intensity of its agency's efforts to reunite the family, the infrequency and insubstantiality of the parents' contacts with their child, and the parents' inability or unwillingness to formulate a plan for the child's future. The attorneys submit documentary evidence, and call witnesses who are subject to cross-examination. Based on all the evidence, the judge then determines whether the State has proved the statutory elements of permanent neglect by a fair preponderance of the evidence. § 622.
At such a proceeding, numerous factors combine to magnify the risk of erroneous factfinding. Permanent neglect proceedings employ imprecise substantive standards that leave determinations unusually open to the subjective values of the judge. See Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. at 431 U. S. 835, n. 36. In appraising the nature and quality of a complex series of encounters among the agency, the parents, and the child, the court possesses unusual discretion to underweigh probative facts that might favor the parent. [Footnote 12]
Page 455 U. S. 763
Because parents subject to termination proceedings are often poor, uneducated, or members of minority groups, id. at 431 U. S. 833-835, such proceedings are often vulnerable to judgments based on cultural or class bias.
The State's ability to assemble its case almost inevitably dwarfs the parents' ability to mount a defense. No predetermined limits restrict the sums an agency may spend in prosecuting a given termination proceeding. The State's attorney usually will be expert on the issues contested and the procedures employed at the factfinding hearing, and enjoys full access to all public records concerning the family. The State may call on experts in family relations, psychology, and medicine to bolster its case. Furthermore, the primary witnesses at the hearing will be the agency's own professional caseworkers, whom the State has empowered both to investigate the family situation and to testify against the parents. Indeed, because the child is already in agency custody, the State even has the power to shape the historical events that form the basis for termination. [Footnote 13]
Page 455 U. S. 764
The disparity between the adversaries' litigation resources is matched by a striking asymmetry in their litigation options. Unlike criminal defendants, natural parents have no "double jeopardy" defense against repeated state termination efforts. If the State initially fails to win termination, as New York did here, see n 4, supra, it always can try once again to cut off the parents' rights after gathering more or better evidence. Yet even when the parents have attained the level of fitness required by the State, they have no similar means by which they can forestall future termination efforts.
Coupled with a "fair preponderance of the evidence" standard, these factors create a significant prospect of erroneous termination. A standard of proof that, by its very terms, demands consideration of the quantity, rather than the quality, of the evidence may misdirect the factfinder in the marginal case. See In re Winship, 397 U.S. at 397 U. S. 371, n. 3 (Harlan, J., concurring). Given the weight of the private interests at stake, the social cost of even occasional error is sizable.
Raising the standard of proof would have both practical and symbolic consequences. Cf. Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. at 441 U. S. 426. The Court has long considered the heightened standard of proof used in criminal prosecutions to be "a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error." In re Winship, 397 U.S. at 397 U. S. 363. An elevated standard of proof in a parental rights termination proceeding would alleviate
"the possible risk that a factfinder might decide to [deprive] an individual based solely on a few isolated instances of unusual conduct [or] . . . idiosyncratic behavior."
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. at 441 U. S. 427.
"Increasing the burden of proof is one way to impress the factfinder with the importance
Page 455 U. S. 765
of the decision, and thereby perhaps to reduce the chances that inappropriate"
terminations will be ordered. Ibid.
The Appellate Division approved New York's preponderance standard on the ground that it properly "balanced rights possessed by the child . . . with those of the natural parents. . . ." 75 App.Div.2d at 910, 427 N.Y.S.2d at 320. By so saying, the court suggested that a preponderance standard properly allocates the risk of error between the parents and the child. [Footnote 14] That view is fundamentally mistaken.
The court's theory assumes that termination of the natural parents' rights invariably will benefit the child. [Footnote 15] Yet we have noted above that the parents and the child share an interest in avoiding erroneous termination. Even accepting the court's assumption, we cannot agree with its conclusion that a preponderance standard fairly distributes the risk of error between parent and child. Use of that standard reflects the judgment that society is nearly neutral between erroneous termination of parental rights and erroneous failure to terminate those rights. Cf. In re Winship, 397 U.S. at 397 U. S. 371 (Harlan, J., concurring). For the child, the likely consequence of an erroneous failure to terminate is preservation of
Page 455 U. S. 766
an uneasy status quo. [Footnote 16] For the natural parents, however, the consequence of an erroneous termination is the unnecessary destruction of their natural family. A standard that allocates the risk of error nearly equally between those two outcomes does not reflect properly their relative severity.
C
Two state interests are at stake in parental rights termination proceedings -- a parens patriae interest in preserving and promoting the welfare of the child and a fiscal and administrative interest in reducing the cost and burden of such proceedings. A standard of proof more strict than preponderance of the evidence is consistent with both interests.
"Since the State has an urgent interest in the welfare of the child, it shares the parent's interest in an accurate and just decision" at the factfinding proceeding. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. at 452 U. S. 27. As parens patriae, the State's goal is to provide the child with a permanent home. See Soc.Serv.Law § 384-b.1.(a)(i) (statement of legislative findings and intent). Yet while there is still reason to believe that positive, nurturing parent-child relationships exist, the parens patriae interest favors preservation, not
Page 455 U. S. 767
severance, of natural familial bonds. [Footnote 17] § 384-b.1.(a)(ii). "[T]he State registers no gain towards its declared goals when it separates children from the custody of fit parents." Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. at 405 U. S. 652.
The State's interest in finding the child an alternative permanent home arises only "when it is clear that the natural parent cannot or will not provide a normal family home for the child." Soc.Serv.Law § 384-b.1.(a)(iv) (emphasis added). At the factfinding, that goal is served by procedures that promote an accurate determination of whether the natural parents can and will provide a normal home.
Unlike a constitutional requirement of hearings, see, e.g., Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. at 424 U. S. 347, or court-appointed counsel, a stricter standard of proof would reduce factual error without imposing substantial fiscal burdens upon the State. As we have observed, 35 States already have adopted a higher standard by statute or court decision without apparent effect on the speed, form, or cost of their factfinding proceedings. See n 3, supra.
Nor would an elevated standard of proof create any real administrative burdens for the State's factfinders. New York Family Court judges already are familiar with a higher evidentiary standard in other parental rights termination proceedings not involving permanent neglect. See Soc.Serv.Law §§ 384-b.3.(g), 384-b.4.(c), and 384-b.4.(e) (requiring "clear and convincing proof" before parental rights may be terminated for reasons of mental illness and mental retardation or severe and repeated child abuse). New York also demands at least clear and convincing evidence in proceedings of far less moment than parental rights termination proceedings. See, e.g., N.Y.Veh. & Traf.Law § 227.1 (McKinney Supp.1981) (requiring the State to prove traffic
Page 455 U. S. 768
infractions by "clear and convincing evidence") and In re Rosenthal v. Hartnett, 36 N.Y.2d 269 326 N.E.2d 811 (1975); see also Ross v. Food Specialties, Inc., 6 N.Y.2d 336, 341, 160 N.E.2d 618, 620 (1959) (requiring "clear, positive and convincing evidence" for contract reformation). We cannot believe that it would burden the State unduly to require that its factfinders have the same factual certainty when terminating the parent-child relationship as they must have to suspend a driver's license.
IV
The logical conclusion of this balancing process is that the "fair preponderance of the evidence" standard prescribed by Fam.Ct.Act § 622 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [Footnote 18] The Court noted in Addington:
"The individual should not be asked to share equally with society the risk of error when the possible injury to the individual is significantly greater than any possible harm to the state."
441 U.S. at 441 U. S. 427. Thus, at a parental rights termination proceeding, a near-equal allocation of risk between the parents and the State is constitutionally intolerable. The next question, then, is whether a "beyond a reasonable doubt" or a "clear and convincing" standard is constitutionally mandated.
In Addington, the Court concluded that application of a reasonable doubt standard is inappropriate in civil commitment proceedings for two reasons -- because of our hesitation to apply that unique standard "too broadly or casually in noncriminal cases," id. at 441 U. S. 428, and because the psychiatric evidence ordinarily adduced at commitment proceedings is
Page 455 U. S. 769
rarely susceptible to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 441 U. S. 429-430, 449 U. S. 432-433. To be sure, as has been noted above, in the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, Pub.L. 9508, § 102(f), 92 Stat. 3072, 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f) (1976 ed., Supp. IV), Congress requires "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" for termination of Indian parental rights, reasoning that "the removal of a child from the parents is a penalty as great [as], if not greater, than a criminal penalty. . . ." H.R.Rep. No. 95-1386, p. 22 (1978). Congress did not consider, however, the evidentiary problems that would arise if proof beyond a reasonable doubt were required in all state-initiated parental rights termination hearings.
Like civil commitment hearings, termination proceedings often require the factfinder to evaluate medical and psychiatric testimony, and to decide issues difficult to prove to a level of absolute certainty, such as lack of parental motive, absence of affection between parent and child, and failure of parental foresight and progress. Cf. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. at 452 U. S. 30; id. at 452 U. S. 44-46 (first dissenting opinion) (describing issues raised in state termination proceedings). The substantive standards applied vary from State to State. Although Congress found a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard proper in one type of parental rights termination case, another legislative body might well conclude that a reasonable doubt standard would erect an unreasonable barrier to state efforts to free permanently neglected children for adoption.
A majority of the States have concluded that a "clear and convincing evidence" standard of proof strikes a fair balance between the rights of the natural parents and the State's legitimate concerns. See n 3, supra. We hold that such a standard adequately conveys to the factfinder the level of subjective certainty about his factual conclusions necessary to satisfy due process. We further hold that determination of the precise burden equal to or greater than that standard
Page 455 U. S. 770
is a matter of state law properly left to state legislatures and state courts. Cf. Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. at 441 U. S. 433.
We, of course, express no view on the merits of petitioners' claims. [Footnote 19] At a hearing conducted under a constitutionally proper standard, they may or may not prevail. Without deciding the outcome under any of the standards we have approved, we vacate the judgment of the Appellate Division and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
[Footnote 1]
At oral argument, counsel for petitioners asserted that, in New York, natural parents have no means of restoring terminated parental rights. Tr. of Oral Arg. 9. Counsel for respondents, citing Fam.Ct.Act § 1061, answered that parents may petition the Family Court to vacate or set aside an earlier order on narrow grounds, such as newly discovered evidence or fraud. Tr. of Oral Arg. 26. Counsel for respondents conceded, however that this statutory provision has never been invoked to set aside a permanent neglect finding. Id. at 27.
[Footnote 2]
Most notably, natural parents have a statutory right to the assistance of counsel and of court-appointed counsel if they are indigent. Fam.Ct.Act § 262.(a)(iii).
[Footnote 3]
Fifteen States, by statute, have required "clear and convincing evidence" or its equivalent. See Alaska Stat.Ann. § 47.10.080(c)(3) (1980); Cal.Civ.Code Ann. § 232(a)(7) (West Supp.1982); Ga.Code §§ 24A-2201(c), 24A-3201 (1979); Iowa Code § 600A.8 (1981) ("clear and convincing proof"); Me.Rev.Stat.Ann., Tit. 22, § 4055.1.B.(2) (Supp. 1981-1982); Mich.Comp.Laws § 722.25 (Supp. 1981-1982); Mo.Rev.Stat. § 211.447.2(2) (Supp.1981) ("clear, cogent and convincing evidence"); N.M.Stat.Ann. § 40-7-4.J. (Supp.1981); N.C.Gen.Stat. § 7A-289.30(e) (1981) ("clear, cogent, and convincing evidence"); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. §§ 2151.35, 2151.414(B) (Page Supp. 1982); R.I.Gen.Laws § 15-7-7(d) (Supp. 1980); Tenn.Code Ann. § 37-246(d) (Supp. 1981); Va.Code § 16.1-283.B (Supp. 1981); W.Va.Code § 492(c) (1980) ("clear and convincing proof"); Wis.Stat. § 48.31(1) (Supp. 1981-1982).
Fifteen States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands, by court decision, have required "clear and convincing evidence" or its equivalent. See Dale County Dept. of Pensions & Security v. Robles, 368 So.2d 39, 42 (Ala.Civ.App.1979); Harper v. Caskin, 265 Ark. 558, 560-561, 580 S.W.2d 176, 178 (1979); In re J.S.R., 374 A.2d 860, 864 (D.C.1977); Torres v. Van Eepoel, 98 So.2d 735, 737 (Fla.1957); In re Kerns, 225 Kan. 746, 753, 594 P.2d 187, 193 (1979); In re Rosenbloom, 266 N.W.2d 888, 889 (Minn.1978) ("clear and convincing proof "); In re J.L.B., 182 Mont. 100, 116-117, 594 P.2d 1127, 1136 (1979); In re Souza, 204 Neb. 503, 510, 283 N.W.2d 48, 52 (1979); J. v. M., 157 N.J.Super. 478, 489, 385 A.2d 240, 246 (App.Div.1978); In re J. A., 283 N.W.2d 83, 92 (N.D.1979); In re Darren Todd H., 615 P.2d 287, 289 (Okla.1980); In re William. L., 477 Pa. 322, 332, 383 A.2d 1228, 1233, cert. denied sub nom. Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services, 439 U.S. 880 (1978); In re G.M., 596 S.W.2d 846, 847 (Tex.1980); In re Pitts, 535 P.2d 1244, 1248 (Utah 1975); In re Maria, 15 V.I. 368, 384 (1978); In re Sego, 82 Wash.2d 736, 739, 513 P.2d 831, 833 (1973) ("clear, cogent, and convincing evidence"); In re X., 607 P.2d 911, 919 (Wyo.1980) ("clear and unequivocal").
South Dakota's Supreme Court has required a "clear preponderance" of the evidence in a dependency proceeding. See In re B.E., 287 N.W.2d 91, 96 (1979). Two States, New Hampshire and Louisiana, have barred parental rights terminations unless the key allegations have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Robert H., 118 N.H. 713, 716, 393 A.2d 1387, 1389 (1978); La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13:1603.A (West Supp.1982). Two States, Illinois and New York, have required clear and convincing evidence, but only in certain types of parental rights termination proceedings. See Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 37, �� 705-9(2), (3) (1979), amended by Act of Sept. 11, 1981, 1982 Ill. Laws, P.A. 82-437 (generally requiring a preponderance of the evidence, but requiring clear and convincing evidence to terminate the rights of minor parents and mentally ill or mentally deficient parents); N.Y.Soc.Serv.Law §§ 384-b.3(g), 384-b.4(c), and 384-b.4(e) (Supp.1981-1982) (requiring "clear and convincing proof" before parental rights may be terminated for reasons of mental illness and mental retardation or severe and repeated child abuse).
So far as we are aware, only two federal courts have addressed the issue. Each has held that allegations supporting parental rights termination must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Sims v. State Dept. of Public Welfare, 438 F.Supp. 1179, 1194 (SD Tex.1977), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Moore v. Sims, 442 U. S. 415 (1979); Alsager v. District Court of Polk County, 406 F.Supp. 10, 25 (SD Iowa 1975), aff'd on other grounds, 545 F.2d 1137 (CA8 1976).
[Footnote 4]
Respondent had made an earlier and unsuccessful termination effort in September, 1976. After a factfinding hearing, the Family Court Judge dismissed respondent's petition for failure to prove an essential element of Fam.Ct.Act § 614.1.(d). See In re Santosky, 89 Misc.2d 730, 393 N.Y.S.2d 486 (1977). The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed, finding that "the record as a whole" revealed that petitioners had "substantially planned for the future of the children." In re John W., 63 App.Div.2d 750, 751, 404 N.Y.S.2d 717, 719 (1978).
[Footnote 5]
Since respondent Kramer took custody of Tina, John III, and Jed, the Santoskys have had two other children, James and Jeremy. The State has taken no action to remove these younger children. At oral argument, counsel for respondents replied affirmatively when asked whether he was asserting that petitioners were "unfit to handle the three older ones, but not unfit to handle the two younger ones." Tr. of Oral Arg. 24.
[Footnote 6]
Petitioners initially had sought review in the New York Court of Appeals. That court sua sponte transferred the appeal to the Appellate Division, Third Department, stating that a direct appeal did not lie because "questions other than the constitutional validity of a statutory provision are involved." App. 50.
[Footnote 7]
We therefore reject respondent Kramer's claim that a parental rights termination proceeding does not interfere with a fundamental liberty interest. See Brief for Respondent Kramer 11-18; Tr. of Oral Arg. 38. The fact that important liberty interests of the child and its foster parents may also be affected by a permanent neglect proceeding does not justify denying the natural parents constitutionally adequate procedures. Nor can the State refuse to provide natural parents adequate procedural safeguards on the ground that the family unit already has broken down; that is the very issue the permanent neglect proceeding is meant to decide.
[Footnote 8]
The dissent charges, post at 455 U. S. 772, n. 2, that
"this Court simply has no role in establishing the standards of proof that States must follow in the various judicial proceedings they afford to their citizens."
As the dissent properly concedes, however, the Court must examine a State's chosen standard to determine whether it satisfies "the constitutional minimum of fundamental fairness.'" Ibid. See, e.g., Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S. 418, 441 U. S. 427, 441 U. S. 433 (1979) (unanimous decision of participating Justices) (Fourteenth Amendment requires at least clear and convincing evidence in a civil proceeding brought under state law to commit an individual involuntarily for an indefinite period to a state mental hospital); In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 397 U. S. 364 (1970) (Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the accused in state proceeding against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged).
[Footnote 9]
For this reason, we reject the suggestions of respondents and the dissent that the constitutionality of New York's statutory procedures must be evaluated as a "package." See Tr. of Oral Arg. 25, 36, 38. Indeed, we would rewrite our precedents were we to excuse a constitutionally defective standard of proof based on an amorphous assessment of the "cumulative effect" of state procedures. In the criminal context, for example, the Court has never assumed that "strict substantive standards or special procedures compensate for a lower burden of proof. . . ." Post at 455 U. S. 773. See In re Winship, 397 U.S. at 397 U. S. 368. Nor has the Court treated appellate review as a curative for an inadequate burden of proof. See Woodby v. INS, 385 U. S. 276, 385 U. S. 282 (1966) ("judicial review is generally limited to ascertaining whether the evidence relied upon by the trier of fact was of sufficient quality and substantiality to support the rationality of the judgment") .
As the dissent points out, "the standard of proof is a crucial component of legal process, the primary function of which is to minimize the risk of erroneous decisions.'" Post at 455 U. S. 785, quoting Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U. S. 1, 442 U. S. 13 (1979). Notice, summons, right to counsel, rules of evidence, and evidentiary hearings are all procedures to place information before the factfinder. But only the standard of proof "instruct[s] the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions" he draws from that information. In re Winship, 397 U.S. at 397 U. S. 370 (Harlan, J., concurring). The statutory provision of right to counsel and multiple hearings before termination cannot suffice to protect a natural parent's fundamental liberty interests if the State is willing to tolerate undue uncertainty in the determination of the dispositive facts.
[Footnote 10]
The Family Court Judge in the present case expressly refused to terminate petitioners' parental rights on a "non-statutory, no-fault basis." App. 22-29. Nor is it clear that the State constitutionally could terminate a parent's rights without showing parental unfitness. See Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U. S. 246, 434 U. S. 255 (1978) ("We have little doubt that the Due Process Clause would be offended [i]f a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children's best interest,'" quoting Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U. S. 816, 431 U. S. 862-863 (1977) (Stewart, J., concurring in judgment)).
[Footnote 11]
For a child, the consequences of termination of his natural parents' rights may well be far-reaching. In Colorado, for example, it has been noted:
"The child loses the right of support and maintenance, for which he may thereafter be dependent upon society; the right to inherit; and all other rights inherent in the legal parent-child relationship, not just for [a limited] period . . . , but forever."
In re K.S., 33 Colo. App. 72, 76, 515 P.2d 130, 133 (1973).
Some losses cannot be measured. In this case, for example, Jed Santosky was removed from his natural parents' custody when he was only three days old; the judge's finding of permanent neglect effectively foreclosed the possibility that Jed would ever know his natural parents.
[Footnote 12]
For example, a New York court appraising an agency's "diligent efforts" to provide the parents with social services can excuse efforts not made on the grounds that they would have been "detrimental to the best interests of the child." Fam.Ct.Act § 614.l.(c). In determining whether the parent "substantially and continuously or repeatedly" failed to "maintain contact with . . . the child," § 614.1.(d), the judge can discount actual visits or communications on the grounds that they were insubstantial or "overtly demonstrat[ed] a lack of affectionate and concerned parenthood." Soc.Serv.Law § 384-b.7.(b). When determining whether the parent planned for the child's future, the judge can reject as unrealistic plans based on overly optimistic estimates of physical or financial ability. § 384-b.7.(c). See also dissenting opinion, post at 455 U. S. 779-780, nn. 8 and 9.
[Footnote 13]
In this case, for example, the parents claim that the State sought court orders denying them the right to visit their children, which would have prevented them from maintaining the contact required by Fam.Ct.Act. § 614.1.(d). See Brief for Petitioners 9. The parents further claim that the State cited their rejection of social services they found offensive or superfluous as proof of the agency's "diligent efforts" and their own "failure to plan" for the children's future. Id. at 10-11.
We need not accept these statements as true to recognize that the State's unusual ability to structure the evidence increases the risk of an erroneous factfinding. Of course, the disparity between the litigants' resources will be vastly greater in States where there is no statutory right to court-appointed counsel. See Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U. S. 18, 452 U. S. 34 (1981) (only 33 States and the District of Columbia provide that right by statute).
[Footnote 14]
The dissent makes a similar claim. See post at 455 U. S. 786-791.
[Footnote 15]
This is a hazardous assumption, at best. Even when a child's natural home is imperfect, permanent removal from that home will not necessarily improve his welfare. See, e.g., Wald, State Intervention on Behalf of "Neglected" Children: A Search for Realistic Standards, 27 Stan.L.Rev. 985, 993 (1975) ("In fact, under current practice, coercive intervention frequently results in placing a child in a more detrimental situation than he would be in without intervention").
Nor does termination of parental rights necessarily ensure adoption. See Brief for Community Action for Legal Services, Inc., et al. as Amici Curiae 22-23. Even when a child eventually finds an adoptive family, he may spend years moving between state institutions and "temporary" foster placements after his ties to his natural parents have been severed. See Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. at 431 U. S. 833-838 (describing the "limbo" of the New York foster care system).
[Footnote 16]
When the termination proceeding occurs, the child is not living at his natural home. A child cannot be adjudicated "permanently neglected" until, "for a period of more than one year," he has been in "the care of an authorized agency." Soc.Serv.Law § 384-b.7.(a); Fam.Ct.Act § 614. l.(d). See also dissenting opinion, post at 455 U. S. 789-790.
Under New York law, a judge has ample discretion to ensure that, once removed from his natural parents on grounds of neglect, a child will not return to a hostile environment. In this case, when the State's initial termination effort failed for lack of proof, see n 4, supra, the court simply issued orders under Fam.Ct.Act § 1055(b) extending the period of the child's foster home placement. See App.19-20. See also Fam.Ct.Act § 632(b) (when State's permanent neglect petition is dismissed for insufficient evidence, judge retains jurisdiction to reconsider underlying orders of placement); § 633 (judge may suspend judgment at dispositional hearing for an additional year).
[Footnote 17]
Any parens patriae interest in terminating the natural parents' rights arises only at the dispositional phase, after the parents have been found unfit.
[Footnote 18]
The dissent's claim that today's decision "will inevitably lead to the federalization of family law," post at 455 U. S. 773, is, of course, vastly overstated. As the dissent properly notes, the Court's duty to "refrai[n] from interfering with state answers to domestic relations questions" has never required "that the Court should blink at clear constitutional violations in state statutes." Post at 455 U. S. 771.
[Footnote 19]
Unlike the dissent, we carefully refrain from accepting as the "facts of this case" findings that are not part of the record, and that have been found only to be more likely true than not.
JUSTICE REHNQUIST, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE WHITE, and JUSTICE O'CONNOR join, dissenting.
I believe that few of us would care to live in a society where every aspect of life was regulated by a single source of law, whether that source be this Court or some other organ of our complex body politic. But today's decision certainly moves us in that direction. By parsing the New York scheme and holding one narrow provision unconstitutional, the majority invites further federal court intrusion into every facet of state family law. If ever there were an area in which federal courts should heed the admonition of Justice Holmes that "a page of history is worth a volume of logic," [Footnote 2/1] it is in the area of domestic relations. This area has been left to the States from time immemorial, and not without good reason.
Equally as troubling is the majority's due process analysis. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that a State will treat individuals with "fundamental fairness" whenever its actions infringe their protected liberty or property interests. By adoption of the procedures relevant to this case, New
Page 455 U. S. 771
York has created an exhaustive program to assist parents in regaining the custody of their children and to protect parents from the unfair deprivation of their parental rights. And yet the majority's myopic scrutiny of the standard of proof blinds it to the very considerations and procedures which make the New York scheme "fundamentally fair."
I
State intervention in domestic relations has always been an unhappy but necessary feature of life in our organized society. For all of our experience in this area, we have found no fully satisfactory solutions to the painful problem of child abuse and neglect. We have found, however, that leaving the States free to experiment with various remedies has produced novel approaches and promising progress.
Throughout this experience, the Court has scrupulously refrained from interfering with state answers to domestic relations questions.
"Both theory and the precedents of this Court teach us solicitude for state interests, particularly in the field of family and family property arrangements."
United States v. Yazell, 382 U. S. 341, 382 U. S. 352 (1966). This is not to say that the Court should blink at clear constitutional violations in state statutes, but rather that, in this area, of all areas,
"substantial weight must be given to the good faith judgments of the individuals [administering a program] . . . that the procedures they have provided assure fair consideration of the . . . claims of individuals."
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 424 U. S. 349 (1976).
This case presents a classic occasion for such solicitude. As will be seen more fully in the next part, New York has enacted a comprehensive plan to aid marginal parents in regaining the custody of their child. The central purpose of the New York plan is to reunite divided families. Adoption of the preponderance of the evidence standard represents New York's good faith effort to balance the interest of parents
Page 455 U. S. 772
against the legitimate interests of the child and the State. These earnest efforts by state officials should be given weight in the Court's application of due process principles.
"Great constitutional provisions must be administered with caution. Some play must be allowed for the joints of the machine, and it must be remembered that legislatures are ultimate guardians of the liberties and welfare of the people in quite as great a degree as the courts."
Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. May, 194 U. S. 267, 194 U. S. 270 (1904). [Footnote 2/2]
The majority may believe that it is adopting a relatively unobtrusive means of ensuring that termination proceedings provide "due process of law." In fact, however, fixing the standard of proof as a matter of federal constitutional law will only lead to further federal court intervention in state schemes. By holding that due process requires proof by clear and convincing evidence, the majority surely cannot mean that any state scheme passes constitutional muster so long as it applies that standard of proof. A state law permitting termination of parental rights upon a showing of neglect by clear and convincing evidence certainly would not be acceptable
Page 455 U. S. 773
to the majority if it provided no procedures other than one 30-minute hearing. Similarly, the majority probably would balk at a state scheme that permitted termination of parental rights on a clear and convincing showing merely that such action would be in the best interests of the child. See Smith v . Organization of Foster Families, 431 U. S. 816, 431 U. S. 862-863 (1977) (Stewart, J., concurring in judgment).
After fixing the standard of proof, therefore, the majority will be forced to evaluate other aspects of termination proceedings with reference to that point. Having in this case abandoned evaluation of the overall effect of a scheme, and with it the possibility of finding that strict substantive standards or special procedures compensate for a lower burden of proof, the majority's approach will inevitably lead to the federalization of family law. Such a trend will only thwart state searches for better solutions in an area where this Court should encourage state experimentation.
"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country. This Court has the power to prevent an experiment."
New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U. S. 262, 285 U. S. 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). It should not do so in the absence of a clear constitutional violation. As will be seen in the next part, no clear constitutional violation has occurred in this case.
II
As the majority opinion notes, petitioners are the parents of five children, three of whom were removed from petitioners' care on or before August 22, 1974. During the next four and one-half years, those three children were in the custody of the State and in the care of foster homes or institutions, and the State was diligently engaged in efforts to prepare petitioners for the children's return. Those efforts were unsuccessful,
Page 455 U. S. 774
however, and, on April 10, 1979, the New York Family Court for Ulster County terminated petitioners' parental rights as to the three children removed in 1974 or earlier. This termination was preceded by a judicial finding that petitioners had failed to plan for the return and future of their children, a statutory category of permanent neglect. Petitioners now contend, and the Court today holds, that they were denied due process of law not because of a general inadequacy of procedural protections, but simply because the finding of permanent neglect was made on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence adduced at the termination hearing.
It is well settled that
"[t]he requirements of procedural due process apply only to the deprivation of interests encompassed by the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of liberty and property."
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, 408 U. S. 569 (1972). In determining whether such liberty or property interests are implicated by a particular government action, "we must look not to the weight,' but to the nature, of the interest at stake." Id. at 408 U. S. 571 (emphasis in original). I do not disagree with the majority's conclusion that the interest of parents in their relationship with their children is sufficiently fundamental to come within the finite class of liberty interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, supra, at 431 U. S. 862-863 (Stewart, J., concurring in judgment). "Once it is determined that due process applies, [however,] the question remains what process is due." Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 408 U. S. 481 (1972). It is the majority's answer to this question with which I disagree.
A
Due process of law is a flexible constitutional principle. The requirements which it imposes upon governmental actions vary with the situations to which it applies. As the Court previously has recognized, "not all situations calling for
Page 455 U. S. 775
procedural safeguards call for the same kind of procedure." Morrissey v. Brewer, supra, at 408 U. S. 481. See also Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U. S. 1, 442 U. S. 12 (1979); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. at 424 U. S. 334; Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 367 U. S. 895 (1961). The adequacy of a scheme of procedural protections cannot, therefore, be determined merely by the application of general principles unrelated to the peculiarities of the case at hand.
Given this flexibility, it is obvious that a proper due process inquiry cannot be made by focusing upon one narrow provision of the challenged statutory scheme. Such a focus threatens to overlook factors which may introduce constitutionally adequate protections into a particular government action. Courts must examine all procedural protections offered by the State, and must assess the cumulative effect of such safeguards. As we have stated before, courts must consider "the fairness and reliability of the existing . . . procedures" before holding that the Constitution requires more. Mathews v. Eldridge, supra, at 424 U. S. 343. Only through such a broad inquiry may courts determine whether a challenged governmental action satisfies the due process requirement of "fundamental fairness." [Footnote 2/3] In some instances, the Court has even looked to nonprocedural restraints on official action in determining whether the deprivation of a protected interest was effected without due process of law. E.g., 430 U. S.
Page 455 U. S. 776
Wright, 430 U. S. 651 (1977). In this case, it is just such a broad look at the New York scheme which reveals its fundamental fairness. [Footnote 2/4]
The termination of parental rights on the basis of permanent neglect can occur under New York law only by order of the Family Court. N.Y.Soc.Serv.Law (SSL) § 384-b.3.(d) (McKinney Supp.1981-1982). Before a petition for permanent termination can be filed in that court, however, several other events must first occur.
The Family Court has jurisdiction only over those children who are in the care of an authorized agency. N.Y. Family Court Act (FCA) § 614.1.(b) (McKinney 1975 and Supp.1981-1982). Therefore, the children who are the subject of a termination petition must previously have been removed from their parents' home on a temporary basis. Temporary removal of a child can occur in one of two ways. The parents may consent to the removal, FCA § 1021, or, as occurred in this case, the Family Court can order the removal pursuant to a finding that the child is abused or neglected. [Footnote 2/5] FCA §§ 1051, 1052.
Page 455 U. S. 777
Court proceedings to order the temporary removal of a child are initiated by a petition alleging abuse or neglect, filed by a state-authorized child protection agency or by a person designated by the court. FCA §§ 1031, 1032. Unless the court finds that exigent circumstances require removal of the child before a petition may be filed and a hearing held, see FCA § 1022, the order of temporary removal results from a "dispositional hearing" conducted to determine the appropriate form of alternative care. FCA § 1045. See also FCA § 1055. This "dispositional hearing" can be held only after the court, at a separate "factfinding hearing," has found the child to be abused or neglected within the specific statutory definition of those terms. FCA §§ 1012, 1044, 1051.
Parents subjected to temporary removal proceedings are provided extensive procedural protections. A summons and copy of the temporary removal petition must be served upon the parents within two days of issuance by the court, FCA §§ 1035, 1036, and the parents may, at their own request, delay the commencement of the factfinding hearing for three days after service of the summons. FCA § 1048. [Footnote 2/6] The factfinding hearing may not commence without a determination by the court that the parents are present at the hearing and have been served with the petition. FCA § 1041. At the hearing itself, "only competent, material and relevant evidence may be admitted," with some enumerated exceptions
Page 455 U. S. 778
for particularly probative evidence. FCA § 1046(b)(ii). In addition, indigent parents are provided with an attorney to represent them at both the factfinding and dispositional hearings, as well as at all other proceedings related to temporary removal of their child. FCA § 262(a)(i).
An order of temporary removal must be reviewed every 18 months by the Family Court. SSL § 392.2. Such review is conducted by hearing before the same judge who ordered the temporary removal, and a notice of the hearing, including a statement of the dispositional alternatives, must be given to the parents at least 20 days before the hearing is held. SSL § 392.4. As in the initial removal action, the parents must be parties to the proceedings, ibid., and are entitled to court-appointed counsel if indigent. FCA § 262(a).
One or more years after a child has been removed temporarily from the parents' home, permanent termination proceedings may be commenced by the filing of a petition in the court which ordered the temporary removal. The petition must be filed by a state agency or by a foster parent authorized by the court, SSL § 384-b.3.(b), and must allege that the child has been permanently neglected by the parents. SSL § 384-b.3.(d). [Footnote 2/7] Notice of the petition and the dispositional proceedings must be served upon the parents at least 20 days before the commencement of the hearing, SSL § 384-b.3.(e), must inform them of the potential consequences of the hearing, ibid., and must inform them
"of their right to the assistance of counsel, including [their] right . . . to have counsel assigned by the court [if] they are financially unable to obtain counsel."
Ibid. See also FCA § 262.
As in the initial removal proceedings, two hearings are held in consideration of the permanent termination petition.
Page 455 U. S. 779
SSL § 384-b.3.(f). At the factfinding hearing, the court must determine, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, whether the child has been permanently neglected. SSL § 384-b.3.(g). "Only competent, material and relevant evidence may be admitted in a factfinding hearing." FCA § 624. The court may find permanent neglect if the child is in the care of an authorized agency or foster home and the parents have
"failed for a period of more than one year . . . substantially and continuously or repeatedly to maintain contact with or plan for the future of the child, although physically and financially able to do so."
SSL § 384-b.7.(a). [Footnote 2/8] In addition, because the State considers its "first obligation" to be the reuniting of the child with its natural parents, SSL § 384-b.1.(iii), the court must also find that the supervising state agency has, without success, made "diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship." SSL § 384-b.7.(a) (emphasis added). [Footnote 2/9]
Page 455 U. S. 780
Following the factfinding hearing, a separate, dispositional hearing is held to determine what course of action would be in "the best interests of the child." FCA § 631. A finding of permanent neglect at the factfinding hearing, although necessary to a termination of parental rights, does not control the court's order at the dispositional hearing. The court may dismiss the petition, suspend judgment on the petition and retain jurisdiction for a period of one year in order to provide further opportunity for a reuniting of the family, or terminate the parents' right to the custody and care of the child. FCA §§ 631-634. The court must base its decision solely upon the record of "material and relevant evidence" introduced at the dispositional hearing, FCA § 624; In re "Female" M., 70 App.Div.2d 812, 417 N.Y.S.2d 482 (1979), and may not entertain any presumption that the best interests of the child "will be promoted by any particular disposition." FCA § 631.
As petitioners did in this case, parents may appeal any unfavorable decision to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court. Thereafter, review may be sought in the New York Court of Appeals and, ultimately, in this Court if a federal question is properly presented.
As this description of New York's termination procedures demonstrates, the State seeks not only to protect the interests of parents in rearing their own children, but also to assist and encourage parents who have lost custody of their children to reassume their rightful role. Fully understood, the New York system is a comprehensive program to aid parents such as petitioners. Only as a last resort, when "diligent efforts" to reunite the family have failed, does New
Page 455 U. S. 781
York authorize the termination of parental rights. The procedures for termination of those relationships which cannot be aided and which threaten permanent injury to the child, administered by a judge who has supervised the case from the first temporary removal through the final termination, cannot be viewed as fundamentally unfair. The facts of this case demonstrate the fairness of the system.
The three children to which this case relates were removed from petitioners' custody in 1973 and 1974, before petitioners' other two children were born. The removals were made pursuant to the procedures detailed above, and in response to what can only be described as shockingly abusive treatment. [Footnote 2/10] At the temporary removal hearing held before the Family Court on September 30, 1974, petitioners were represented by counsel, and allowed the Ulster County Department of Social Services (Department) to take custody of the three children.
Temporary removal of the children was continued at an evidentiary hearing held before the Family Court in December, 1975, after which the court issued a written opinion concluding that petitioners were unable to resume their parental responsibilities due to personality disorders. Unsatisfied with the progress petitioners were making, the court also directed
Page 455 U. S. 782
the Department to reduce to writing the plan which it had designed to solve the problems at petitioners' home and reunite the family.
A plan for providing petitioners with extensive counseling and training services was submitted to the court and approved in February, 1976. Under the plan, petitioners received training by a mother's aide, a nutritional aide, and a public health nurse, and counseling at a family planning clinic. In addition, the plan provided psychiatric treatment and vocational training for the father, and counseling at a family service center for the mother. Brief for Respondent Kramer 1-7. Between early 1976 and the final termination decision in April, 1979, the State spent more than $15,000 in these efforts to rehabilitate petitioners as parents. App. 34.
Petitioners' response to the State's effort was marginal, at best. They wholly disregarded some of the available services, and participated only sporadically in the others. As a result, and out of growing concern over the length of the children's stay in foster care, the Department petitioned, in September, 1976, for permanent termination of petitioners' parental rights so that the children could be adopted by other families. Although the Family Court recognized that petitioners' reaction to the State's efforts was generally "nonresponsive, even hostile," the fact that they were "at least superficially cooperative" led it to conclude that there was yet hope of further improvement and an eventual reuniting of the family. Exhibit to Brief for Respondent Kramer 618. Accordingly, the petition for permanent termination was dismissed.
Whatever progress petitioners were making prior to the 1976 termination hearing, they made little or no progress thereafter. In October, 1978, the Department again filed a termination petition alleging that petitioners had completely failed to plan for the children's future despite the considerable efforts rendered in their behalf. This time, the Family Court agreed. The court found that petitioners had
"failed in any meaningful way to take advantage of the many social
Page 455 U. S. 783
and rehabilitative services that have not only been made available to them but have been diligently urged upon them."
App. 35. In addition, the court found that the "infrequent" visits "between the parents and their children were, at best, superficial, and devoid of any real emotional content." Id. at 21. The court thus found
"nothing in the situation which holds out any hope that [petitioners] may ever become financially self sufficient or emotionally mature enough to be independent of the services of social agencies. More than a reasonable amount of time has passed, and still, in the words of the case workers, there has been no discernible forward movement. At some point in time, it must be said, 'enough is enough.'"
Id. at 36.
In accordance with the statutory requirements set forth above, the court found that petitioners' failure to plan for the future of their children, who were then seven, five, and four years old and had been out of petitioners' custody for at least four years, rose to the level of permanent neglect. At a subsequent dispositional hearing, the court terminated petitioners' parental rights, thereby freeing the three children for adoption.
As this account demonstrates, the State's extraordinary 4-year effort to reunite petitioners' family was not just unsuccessful, it was altogether rebuffed by parents unwilling to improve their circumstances sufficiently to permit a return of their children. At every step of this protracted process, petitioners were accorded those procedures and protections which traditionally have been required by due process of law. Moreover, from the beginning to the end of this sad story, all judicial determinations were made by one Family Court Judge. After four and one-half years of involvement with petitioners, more than seven complete hearings, and additional periodic supervision of the State's rehabilitative efforts, the judge no doubt was intimately familiar with this case and the prospects for petitioners' rehabilitation.
It is inconceivable to me that these procedures were "fundamentally unfair" to petitioners. Only by its obsessive
Page 455 U. S. 784
focus on the standard of proof and its almost complete disregard of the facts of this case does the majority find otherwise. [Footnote 2/11] As the discussion above indicates, however, such a
Page 455 U. S. 785
focus does not comport with the flexible standard of fundamental fairness embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
B
In addition to the basic fairness of the process afforded petitioners, the standard of proof chosen by New York clearly reflects a constitutionally permissible balance of the interests at stake in this case. The standard of proof
"represents an attempt to instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication."
In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 397 U. S. 370 (1970) (Harlan, J. concurring); Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S. 418, 441 U. S. 423 (1979). In this respect, the standard of proof is a crucial component of legal process, the primary function of which is "to minimize the risk of erroneous decisions." [Footnote 2/12] Greenholtz v. Nebraska
Page 455 U. S. 786
Penal Inmates, 442 U.S. at 442 U. S. 13. See also Addington v. Texas, supra, at 441 U. S. 425; Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. at 424 U. S. 344.
In determining the propriety of a particular standard of proof in a given case, however, it is not enough simply to say that we are trying to minimize the risk of error. Because errors in factfinding affect more than one interest, we try to minimize error as to those interests which we consider to be most important. As Justice Harlan explained in his well known concurrence to In re Winship:
"In a lawsuit between two parties, a factual error can make a difference in one of two ways. First, it can result in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff when the true facts warrant a judgment for the defendant. The analogue in a criminal case would be the conviction of an innocent man. On the other hand, an erroneous factual determination can result in a judgment for the defendant when the true facts justify a judgment in plaintiff's favor. The criminal analogue would be the acquittal of a guilty man."
The standard of proof influences the relative frequency of these two types of erroneous outcomes. If, for example, the standard of proof for a criminal trial were a preponderance of the evidence, rather than proof
Page 455 U. S. 787
beyond a reasonable doubt, there would be a smaller risk of factual errors that result in freeing guilty persons, but a far greater risk of factual errors that result in convicting the innocent. Because the standard of proof affects the comparative frequency of these two types of erroneous outcomes, the choice of the standard to be applied in a particular kind of litigation should, in a rational world, reflect an assessment of the comparative social disutility of each.
397 U.S. at 397 U. S. 370-371.
When the standard of proof is understood as reflecting such an assessment, an examination of the interests at stake in a particular case becomes essential to determining the propriety of the specified standard of proof. Because proof by a preponderance of the evidence requires that "[t]he litigants . . . share the risk of error in a roughly equal fashion," Addington v. Texas, supra, at 441 U. S. 423, it rationally should be applied only when the interests at stake are of roughly equal societal importance. The interests at stake in this case demonstrate that New York has selected a constitutionally permissible standard of proof.
On one side is the interest of parents in a continuation of the family unit and the raising of their own children. The importance of this interest cannot easily be overstated. Few consequences of judicial action are so grave as the severance of natural family ties. Even the convict committed to prison and thereby deprived of his physical liberty often retains the love and support of family members.
"This Court's decisions have by now made plain beyond the need for multiple citation that a parent's desire for and right to 'the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children' is an important interest that 'undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.' Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 405 U. S. 651."
Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U. S. 18, 452 U. S. 27 (1981). In creating the scheme at issue in this case, the New York Legislature
Page 455 U. S. 788
was expressly aware of this right of parents "to bring up their own children." SSL § 384-b.1.(a)(ii).
On the other side of the termination proceeding are the often countervailing interests of the child. [Footnote 2/13] A stable, loving
Page 455 U. S. 789
home life is essential to a child's physical, emotional, and spiritual wellbeing. It requires no citation of authority to assert that children who are abused in their youth generally face extraordinary problems developing into responsible, productive citizens. The same can be said of children who, though not physically or emotionally abused, are passed from one foster home to another with no constancy of love, trust, or discipline. If the Family Court makes an incorrect factual determination resulting in a failure to terminate a parent-child relationship which rightfully should be ended, the child involved must return either to an abusive home [Footnote 2/14] or to the often unstable world of foster care. [Footnote 2/15] The reality of these
Page 455 U. S. 790
risks is magnified by the fact that the only families faced with termination actions are those which have voluntarily surrendered custody of their child to the State, or, as in this case, those from which the child has been removed by judicial action because of threatened irreparable injury through abuse or neglect. Permanent neglect findings also occur only in families where the child has been in foster care for at least one year.
In addition to the child's interest in a normal home life, "the State has an urgent interest in the welfare of the child." Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. at 452 U. S. 27. [Footnote 2/16] Few could doubt that the most valuable resource of a self-governing society is its population of children, who will one day become adults and themselves assume the responsibility of self-governance.
"A democratic society rests, for its continuance, upon the healthy, well-rounded growth of young people into full maturity as citizens, with all that implies."
Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 321 U. S. 168 (1944). Thus, "the whole community" has an interest "that children be both safeguarded from abuses and given opportunities for growth into free and independent well-developed . . . citizens." Id. at 321 U. S. 165. See also Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, 390 U. S. 640-641 (1968).
When, in the context of a permanent neglect termination proceeding, the interests of the child and the State in a stable,
Page 455 U. S. 791
nurturing home life are balanced against the interests of the parents in the rearing of their child, it cannot be said that either set of interests is so clearly paramount as to require that the risk of error be allocated to one side or the other. Accordingly, a State constitutionally may conclude that the risk of error should be borne in roughly equal fashion by use of the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof. See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. at 441 U. S. 423. This is precisely the balance which has been struck by the New York Legislature:
"It is the intent of the legislature in enacting this section to provide procedures not only assuring that the rights of the natural parent are protected, but also, where positive, nurturing parent-child relationships no longer exist, furthering the best interests, needs, and rights of the child by terminating the parental rights and freeing the child for adoption."
SSL § 384-b.1.(b).
III
For the reasons heretofore stated, I believe that the Court today errs in concluding that the New York standard of proof in parental rights termination proceedings violates due process of law. The decision disregards New York's earnest efforts to aid parents in regaining the custody of their children and a host of procedural protections placed around parental rights and interests. The Court finds a constitutional violation only by a tunnel vision application of due process principles that altogether loses sight of the unmistakable fairness of the New York procedure.
Even more worrisome, today's decision cavalierly rejects the considered judgment of the New York Legislature in an area traditionally entrusted to state care. The Court thereby begins, I fear, a trend of federal intervention in state family law matters which surely will stifle creative responses to vexing problems. Accordingly, I dissent.
[Footnote 2/1]
New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U. S. 345, 256 U. S. 349 (1921).
[Footnote 2/2]
The majority asserts that
"the degree of proof required in a particular type of proceeding 'is the kind of question which has traditionally been left to the judiciary to resolve.' Woodby v. INS, 385 U. S. 276, 385 U. S. 284 (1966)."
Ante at 455 U. S. 755-756. To the extent that the majority seeks, by this statement, to place upon the federal judiciary the primary responsibility for deciding the appropriate standard of proof in state matters, it arrogates to itself a responsibility wholly at odds with the allocation of authority in our federalist system, and wholly unsupported by the prior decisions of this Court. In Woodby v. INS, 385 U. S. 276 (1966), the Court determined the proper standard of proof to be applied under a federal statute, and did so only after concluding that "Congress ha[d] not addressed itself to the question of what degree of proof [was] required in deportation proceedings." Id. at 385 U. S. 284. Beyond an examination for the constitutional minimum of "fundamental fairness" -- which clearly is satisfied by the New York procedures at issue in this case -- this Court simply has no role in establishing the standards of proof that States must follow in the various judicial proceedings they afford to their citizens.
[Footnote 2/3]
Although, as the majority states, we have held that the minimum requirements of procedural due process are a question of federal law, such a holding does not mean that the procedural protections afforded by a State will be inadequate under the Fourteenth Amendment. It means simply that the adequacy of the state-provided process is to be judged by constitutional standards -- standards which the majority itself equates to "fundamental fairness." Ante at 455 U. S. 754. I differ, therefore, not with the majority's statement that the requirements of due process present a federal question, but with its apparent assumption that the presence of "fundamental fairness" can be ascertained by an examination which completely disregards the plethora of protective procedures accorded parents by New York law.
[Footnote 2/4]
The majority refuses to consider New York's procedure as a whole, stating that
"[t]he statutory provision of right to counsel and multiple hearings before termination cannot suffice to protect a natural parent's fundamental liberty interests if the State is willing to tolerate undue uncertainty in the determination of the dispositive facts."
Ante at 455 U. S. 758, n. 9. Implicit in this statement is the conclusion that the risk of error may be reduced to constitutionally tolerable levels only by raising the standard of proof -- that other procedures can never eliminate "undue uncertainty" so long as the standard of proof remains too low. Aside from begging the question of whether the risks of error tolerated by the State in this case are "undue," see infra at 455 U. S. 785-791, this conclusion denies the flexibility that we have long recognized in the principle of due process; understates the error-reducing power of procedural protections such as the right to counsel, evidentiary hearings, rules of evidence, and appellate review; and establishes the standard of proof as the sine qua non of procedural due process.
[Footnote 2/5]
An abused child is one who has been subjected to intentional physical injury
"which causes or creates a substantial risk of death, or serious or protracted disfigurement, or protracted impairment of physical or emotional health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ."
FCA § 1012(e)(i). Sexual offenses against a child are also covered by this category. A neglected child is one
"whose physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of his parent . . . to exercise a minimum degree of care in supplying the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter or education."
FCA § 1012(f)(i)(A).
[Footnote 2/6]
The relatively short time between notice and commencement of hearing provided by § 1048 undoubtedly reflects the State's desire to protect the child. These proceedings are designed to permit prompt action by the court when the child is threatened with imminent and serious physical, mental, or emotional harm.
[Footnote 2/7]
Permanent custody also may be awarded by the Family Court if both parents are deceased, the parents abandoned the child at least six months prior to the termination proceedings, or the parents are unable to provide proper and adequate care by reason of mental illness or mental retardation. SSL § 384-b.4.(c).
[Footnote 2/8]
As to maintaining contact with the child, New York law provides that
"evidence of insubstantial or infrequent contacts by a parent with his or her child shall not, of itself, be sufficient as a matter of law to preclude a determination that such child is a permanently neglected child. A visit or communication by a parent with the child which is of such a character as to overtly demonstrate a lack of affectionate and concerned parenthood shall not be deemed a substantial contact."
SSL § 384-b.7.(b).
Failure to plan for the future of the child means failure
"to take such steps as may be necessary to provide an adequate, stable home and parental care for the child within a period of time which is reasonable under the financial circumstances available to the parent. The plan must be realistic and feasible, and good faith effort shall not, of itself, be determinative. In determining whether a parent has planned for the future of the child, the court may consider the failure of the parent to utilize medical, psychiatric, psychological and other social and rehabilitative services and material resources made available to such parent."
SSL § 384-b.7.(c).
[Footnote 2/9]
"Diligent efforts" are defined under New York law to
"mean reasonable attempts by an authorized agency to assist, develop and encourage a meaningful relationship between the parent and child, including but not limited to:"
"(1) consultation and cooperation with the parents in developing a plan for appropriate services to the child and his family;"
"(2) making suitable arrangements for the parents to visit the child;"
"(3) provision of services and other assistance to the parents so that problems preventing the discharge of the child from care may be resolved or ameliorated; and"
"(4) informing the parents at appropriate intervals of the child's progress, development and health."
SSL § 384-b.7.(f).
[Footnote 2/10]
Tina Apel, the oldest of petitioners' five children, was removed from their custody by court order in November, 1973, when she was two years old. Removal proceedings were commenced in response to complaints by neighbors and reports from a local hospital that Tina had suffered injuries in petitioners' home, including a fractured left femur, treated with a homemade splint; bruises on the upper arms, forehead, flank, and spine; and abrasions of the upper leg. The following summer, John Santosky III, petitioners' second oldest child, was also removed from petitioners' custody. John, who was less than one year old at the time, was admitted to the hospital suffering malnutrition, bruises on the eye and forehead, cuts on the foot, blisters on the hand, and multiple pin pricks on the back. Exhibit to Brief for Respondent Kramer 1. Jed Santosky, the third oldest of petitioners' children, was removed from his parents' custody when only three days old as a result of the abusive treatment of the two older children.
[Footnote 2/11]
The majority finds, without any reference to the facts of this case, that "numerous factors [in New York termination proceedings] combine to magnify the risk of erroneous factfinding." Ante at 455 U. S. 762. Among the factors identified by the majority are the "unusual discretion" of the Family Court judge "to underweigh probative facts that might favor the parent"; the often uneducated, minority status of the parents and their consequent "vulnerab[ility] to judgments based on cultural or class bias"; the "State's ability to assemble its case," which "dwarfs the parents' ability to mount a defense" by including an unlimited budget, expert attorneys, and "full access to all public records concerning the family"; and the fact that "natural parents have no double jeopardy' defense against repeated state" efforts, "with more or better evidence," to terminate parental rights "even when the parents have attained the level of fitness required by the State." Ante at 455 U. S. 762, 455 U. S. 763, 455 U. S. 764. In short, the majority characterizes the State as a wealthy and powerful bully bent on taking children away from defenseless parents. See ante at 455 U. S. 761-764. Such characterization finds no support in the record.
The intent of New York has been stated with eminent clarity: "the [S]tate's first obligation is to help the family with services to prevent its break-up or to reunite it if the child has already left home." SSL § 384-b.1.(a)(iii) (emphasis added). There is simply no basis in fact for believing, as the majority does, that the State does not mean what it says; indeed, the facts of this case demonstrate that New York has gone the extra mile in seeking to effectuate its declared purpose. See supra at 455 U. S. 781-785. More importantly, there should be no room in the jurisprudence of this Court for decisions based on unsupported, inaccurate assumptions.
A brief examination of the "factors" relied upon by the majority demonstrates its error. The "unusual" discretion of the Family Court judge to consider the "affectio[n] and concer[n]'" displayed by parents during visits with their children, ante at 455 U. S. 763, n. 12, is nothing more than discretion to consider reality; there is not one shred of evidence in this case suggesting that the determination of the Family Court was "based on cultural or class bias"; if parents lack the "ability to mount a defense," the State provides them with the full services of an attorney, FCA § 262, and they, like the State, have "full access to all public records concerning the family" (emphasis added); and the absence of "double jeopardy" protection simply recognizes the fact that family problems are often ongoing, and may in the future warrant action that currently is unnecessary. In this case, the Family Court dismissed the first termination petition because it desired to give petitioners "the benefit of the doubt," Exhibit to Brief for Respondent Kramer 620, and a second opportunity to raise themselves to "an acceptable minimal level of competency as parents." Id. at 455 U. S. 624. It was their complete failure to do so that prompted the second, successful termination petition. See supra at 455 U. S. 781-784 and this page.
[Footnote 2/12]
It is worth noting that the significance of the standard of proof in New York parental termination proceedings differs from the significance of the standard in other forms of litigation. In the usual adjudicatory setting, the factfinder has had little or no prior exposure to the facts of the case. His only knowledge of those facts comes from the evidence adduced at trial, and he renders his findings solely upon the basis of that evidence. Thus, normally, the standard of proof is a crucial factor in the final outcome of the case, for it is the scale upon which the factfinder weighs his knowledge and makes his decision.
Although the standard serves the same function in New York parental termination proceedings, additional assurances of accuracy are present in its application. As was adduced at oral argument, the practice in New York is to assign one judge to supervise a case from the initial temporary removal of the child to the final termination of parental rights. Therefore, as discussed above, the factfinder is intimately familiar with the case before the termination proceedings ever begin. Indeed, as in this case, he often will have been closely involved in protracted efforts to rehabilitate the parents. Even if a change in judges occurs, the Family Court retains jurisdiction of the case, and the newly assigned judge may take judicial notice of all prior proceedings. Given this familiarity with the case, and the necessarily lengthy efforts which must precede a termination action in New York, decisions in termination cases are made by judges steeped in the background of the case and peculiarly able to judge the accuracy of evidence placed before them. This does not mean that the standard of proof in these cases can escape due process scrutiny, only that additional assurances of accuracy attend the application of the standard in New York termination proceedings.
[Footnote 2/13]
The majority dismisses the child's interest in the accuracy of determinations made at the factfinding hearing because "[t]he factfinding does not purport . . . to balance the child's interest in a normal family home against the parents' interest in raising the child," but instead "pits the State directly against the parents." Ante at 455 U. S. 759. Only "[a]fter the State has established parental unfitness," the majority reasons, may the court "assume . . . that the interests of the child and the natural parents do diverge." Ante at 455 U. S. 760.
This reasoning misses the mark. The child has an interest in the outcome of the factfinding hearing independent of that of the parent. To be sure, "the child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship." Ibid. (emphasis added). But the child's interest in a continuation of the family unit exists only to the extent that such a continuation would not be harmful to him. An error in the factfinding hearing that results in a failure to terminate a parent-child relationship which rightfully should be terminated may well detrimentally affect the child. See nn. 14, 15, infra.
The preponderance of the evidence standard, which allocates the risk of error more or less evenly, is employed when the social disutility of error in either direction is roughly equal -- that is, when an incorrect finding of fault would produce consequences as undesirable as the consequences that would be produced by an incorrect finding of no fault. Only when the disutility of error in one direction discernibly outweighs the disutility of error in the other direction do we choose, by means of the standard of proof, to reduce the likelihood of the more onerous outcome. See In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 397 U. S. 370-372 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring).
New York's adoption of the preponderance of the evidence standard reflects its conclusion that the undesirable consequence of an erroneous finding of parental unfitness -- the unwarranted termination of the family relationship -- is roughly equal to the undesirable consequence of an erroneous finding of parental fitness -- the risk of permanent injury to the child either by return of the child to an abusive home or by the child's continued lack of a permanent home. See nn. 14, 15, infra. Such a conclusion is well within the province of state legislatures. It cannot be said that the New York procedures are unconstitutional simply because a majority of the Members of this Court disagree with the New York Legislature's weighing of the interests of the parents and the child in an error-free factfinding hearing.
[Footnote 2/14]
The record in this case illustrates the problems that may arise when a child is returned to an abusive home. Eighteen months after Tina, petitioners' oldest child, was first removed from petitioners' home, she was returned to the home on a trial basis. Katherine Weiss, a supervisor in the Child Protective Unit of the Ulster County Child Welfare Department, later testified in Family Court that "[t]he attempt to return Tina to her home just totally blew up." Exhibit to Brief for Respondent Kramer 135. When asked to explain what happened, Mrs. Weiss testified that
"there were instances on the record in this court of Mr. Santosky's abuse of his wife, alleged abuse of the children, and proven neglect of the children."
Ibid. Tina again was removed from the home, this time along with John and Jed.
[Footnote 2/15]
The New York Legislature recognized the potential harm to children of extended, nonpermanent foster care. It found
"that many children who have been placed in foster care experience unnecessarily protracted stays in such care without being adopted or returned to their parents or other custodians. Such unnecessary stays may deprive these children of positive, nurturing family relationships and have deleterious effects on their development into responsible, productive citizens."
SSL § 384-b.1.(b). Subsequent studies have proved this finding correct. One commentator recently wrote of "the lamentable conditions of many foster care placements" under the New York system even today. He noted:
"Over fifty percent of the children in foster care have been in this "
"temporary" status for more than two years; over thirty percent for more than five years. During this time, many children are placed in a sequence of ill-suited foster homes, denying them the consistent support and nurturing that they so desperately need.
Besharov, State Intervention To Protect Children: New York's Definition of "Child Abuse" and "Child Neglect," 26 N.Y.L.S.L.Rev. 723, 770-771 (1981) (footnotes omitted). In this case, petitioners' three children have been in foster care for more than four years, one child since he was only three days old. Failure to terminate petitioners' parental rights will only mean a continuation of this unsatisfactory situation.
[Footnote 2/16]
The majority's conclusion that a state interest in the child's wellbeing arises only after a determination of parental unfitness suffers from the same error as its assertion that the child has no interest, separate from that of its parents, in the accuracy of the factfinding hearing. See n. 13, supra.
CPS corruption hurts and destroys families worldwide. Please use caution posting about CPS here or anyplace on the internet. For your protection, using your full, real name and precise location is not advised. CPS has eyes everywhere and CPS is notorious for taking what people say, twisting it, embellishing on it and then using it against them in CPS "investigations" and at court proceedings.
Monday, August 8, 2011
ROGERS v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, No. 05-16071
In May 2007, the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in ROGERS v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, No. 05-16071 that a CPS social worker who removed children from their natural parents and placed them into foster care without obtaining judicial authorization, was acting without due process and without exigency (emergency conditions) violated the 14th Amendment and Title 42 United State Code Section 1983. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says that a state may not make a law that abridges "... the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" and no state may "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Title 42 United States Code Section 1983 states that citizens can sue in federal courts any person that acting under a color of law to deprive the citizens of their civil rights under the pretext of a regulation of a state.
United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit
ROGERS v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
Thomas ROGERS; Nicole Rogers, an individual; Steven Kahncock, Guardian ad litem for minors Thomas R. Rogers and Shelby Rogers, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN; Charlotta Royal, individually and in her official capacity as social worker for the County of San Joaquin Human Services Agency; Denise West, individually and in her official capacity as social worker for the County of San Joaquin Human Services Agency; City of Lodi; Dennis Lewis, individually and in his capacity as police officer for the City of Lodi, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-16071.
Argued and Submitted April 16, 2007. -- May 29, 2007
Before: WARREN J. FERGUSON, STEPHEN REINHARDT, and MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judges.
David J. Beauvais, Oakland, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellants.Daniel C. Cederborg, Office of the County Counsel, County of San Joaquin, Stockton, CA, for the defendants-appellees.
The Rogers family brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the conduct of social worker Charlotta Royal in removing the Rogers children from their home without a warrant violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, although the Rogerses' was as to liability only. The district court granted Royal's motion on the basis of qualified immunity. Because we hold that it was clearly established that warrantless removal of children is permissible only in cases of exigency, and that it would have been apparent to a reasonable social worker that no exigency existed in this case, we reverse both the grant of summary judgment to Royal and the denial of partial summary judgment to the Rogerses.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 20, 2001, San Joaquin County Child Protective Services received a report of child neglect in the Rogers home. The caller stated that three-year-old Shelby Rogers (“Shelby”) and five-year-old Thomas Rogers, Jr. (“Tommy”) were not toilet-trained, were locked in their rooms at night and in a room at their parents' business during the day, were not receiving medical or dental care, that Tommy had lost his teeth due to bottle rot, that Shelby was still being fed with a bottle, that their home was dirty and maggot-infested, and that there were unsecured guns in the home. The intake unit did not view this report as requiring an emergency response, but rather classified it as warranting a response within ten days.1 Three days later, before any action had been taken to investigate the report, Child Protective Services received a second, similar report regarding the Rogers children and likewise classified it as requiring a ten-day response.
On August 31, Royal, a social worker with Child Protective Services, visited the Rogers home, but, finding no one there, departed without leaving a message or a note. She returned a week later, on September 7 at 8:30 a.m. Observing that the family was home, Royal called for the assistance of Lodi Police and waited for the officers to arrive before making contact with the family. Officer Dennis Lewis and at least one other police officer responded.
The family was just getting up when Royal and the officers entered their home.2 Royal claimed that following her entry she heard Shelby knocking and asking for her mother from inside a bedroom. The mother, Nicole Rogers (“Nicole”), claims, however, that Shelby was neither knocking nor calling for her.
Officer Lewis asked to see the whole family. Nicole went to Shelby's bedroom and unfastened a latch-type lock to open the door. Shelby emerged from the room dressed in a diaper that, according to Royal, appeared to be soiled. Nicole then retrieved Tommy from his bedroom. Tommy emerged wearing pajamas and a pull-up diaper. Royal saw a thumb lock similar to those used in bathroom doors on the outside of Tommy's bedroom door. Royal believed that both children had been locked in their bedrooms, but Nicole testified that Tommy's bedroom door was not locked. The father, Thomas Rogers (“Thomas”), also got out of bed to talk with Royal and Officer Lewis.
Royal asked why the children had locks on their bedroom doors. Nicole testified that she told Royal that they had never locked Tommy's door, that his room had a lock on the door when they moved into the house, and that they had simply never removed it. According to her testimony, she also stated that they locked Shelby in her room at night because otherwise she would roam the house and get into things while the rest of the family was sleeping. However, Royal testified that Nicole first stated that she locked the children in their rooms only when she showered, and that only after Royal pointed out that Nicole had not been showering when they arrived did she say that she locked Shelby in at night. Royal testified that she believed Nicole had tried to lie to her and that this concerned her. She said that she was also concerned about the children being locked in their bedrooms because it could result in injury due to lack of supervision or as a result of a fire, and could restrict their access to the bathroom. Royal told the Rogerses that they would have to remove the locks. Nicole testified that she agreed to do so, but Royal contended that the Rogerses did not respond to her statement.
Royal asked why the children were still in diapers. The Rogerses testified that they replied that they were “working with” Tommy, and that while they put a pull-up diaper on him at night, he was “doing good during the day.” They said that Shelby was not yet toilet-trained. Royal testified, however, that Nicole told her that “she hadn't had time” to toilet-train the children.
Royal and Officer Lewis inspected Tommy's mouth. Tommy suffered from severe bottle rot. Several of his teeth were missing and his remaining teeth were yellow and showed signs of decay. His mother acknowledged during her deposition that Tommy's mouth had looked “horrible.” Nicole told Royal that Tommy had never complained of pain. She said that a dentist had told her that Tommy needed surgery, and she had scheduled an appointment but cancelled it out of fear that Tommy would be harmed, after she and her husband saw a television program about a child dying while under general anesthesia. Royal testified that she believed that this meant the Rogerses were unwilling to take Tommy to the dentist.
Royal asked if the family had medical insurance. According to Nicole, she answered that they did not have medical insurance at the moment but that she was waiting for an application, at which point Royal asked for proof that she had ever had insurance and Nicole showed her old membership cards for Kaiser. Nicole testified that Royal then asked her if the cards were active and she replied that they were not. Royal, however, stated that Nicole first told her that they had medical insurance and then attempted to deceive her by showing her inactive cards when she asked for proof. This, according to Royal, caused her further to doubt Nicole's honesty.
Royal observed that the children had multiple circular bruises on their legs. Nicole stated that the children were always falling down. Royal also observed that Shelby had a large scratch on the side of her face. Nicole and Thomas told Royal that Shelby sustained the scratch when she fell off a chair at their workplace. They explained that they worked in an auto shop in San Leandro and that they took the children with them to work every day. Royal testified that she did not think that the children were being physically abused. She was concerned, however, that, because the children were taken to their parents' place of business every day, they were isolated and would not be seen by pre-school teachers or others who would be required to report suspected abuse.
Royal also observed that Shelby had unkempt hair that appeared to be thin and missing in some areas and that both children were very pale. She believed that the thinning hair could indicate malnutrition and the pale skin could be due to a vitamin deficiency or lack of sunlight. She observed, however, that the refrigerator and kitchen cabinets were well stocked with food and that the bathroom had the necessary toiletries. She told the Rogerses that the children looked very pale and sickly, and that they could be suffering from a vitamin deficiency or from lack of sunlight. Nicole responded that their pale complexion and Shelby's thin hair were due to the fact that their father has pale skin and fine hair.
The parties dispute the condition of the Rogers home. Royal and Officer Lewis stated that they observed piles of dirty dishes and an overflowing garbage receptacle in the kitchen, as well as piles of dirty clothing scattered about the kitchen, living room and bedrooms. Thomas testified, however, that the garbage receptacles were only partly full. He also testified that the reason for the piles of clothing was that the washer and dryer were broken.
Royal stated that she observed that the children had dirty bedding and mattresses without frames. In Shelby's room, she saw clothing that she believed was dirty scattered on the floor. The Rogerses do not dispute that the children did not have bedframes, but testified that the clothing and bedding were clean. Thomas also testified that Shelby's clothes were on the floor because she had a habit of pulling them out of her dresser to play dress-up. In Tommy's room, Royal observed a brown substance that she believed to be feces smeared on the wall and a substance that she thought was rat droppings on the floor. Officer Lewis observed what he thought was vomit in the bottom drawer of a night stand. Tommy told Royal that the substance on the wall was a smashed graham cracker. The Rogerses testified that the alleged rat droppings on the floor actually consisted of small grains of filling that came out of a broken hacky sack ball, and the purported vomit, like the smears on the wall, was the remains of broken graham crackers.
There were five guns in the Rogerses' bedroom, four of which were unloaded and stored in the closet, and one of which was loaded and kept in the dresser next to the Rogerses' bed. Thomas testified that ammunition for the guns remained in the closet in a childproof container. Nicole testified that the gun in the dresser had a trigger lock with a key, and the key was located in a jewelry box mounted on the wall.
Royal stated that after her conversation with the Rogerses and her observations of the condition of the home, she believed that the Rogers children had been neglected for some time and that there was an imminent risk to their physical health and safety. Based on this opinion, Royal chose to remove them from their home immediately and place them in the custody of Child Protective Services.3 Royal did not offer the Rogerses alternative accommodations, medical referrals for the children, or services from the agency whereby the children could remain at home. Royal also did not obtain a warrant.
Royal called for a car seat and, when it arrived, transported the children to Lodi Memorial Hospital. She testified that Tommy complained of mouth pain while at the hospital. She also testified that an attending nurse stated that the children appeared to be malnourished and suffering from a vitamin deficiency. The doctor who saw the children stated in his evaluation that both were “alert” and “playful,” but had “poor hygiene.” The doctor wrote that Tommy had “many teeth missing” and that Shelby's hair was “sparse, brittle.” The doctor also wrote that the purpose of the visit was “medical clearance prior to [Child Protective Services] placement” and classified the visit as routine rather than emergency.
After the medical clearance the children were placed in a shelter. Tommy did not receive any dental care that day or at any time while in the County's custody. The children were returned to their parents on September 20, 2001, after the Rogerses made changes to their home and lifestyle as required by Child Protective Services, obtained medical insurance, and arranged for Tommy to have oral surgery. As a result of their time in custody, according to their mother, the children became concerned about being separated from their parents. Nicole further testified that Tommy, in particular, “lost trust in people in general” because of the experience.
The Rogerses appealed the grant of summary judgment to Royal as well as the denial of their own motion for partial summary judgment as to Royal.
JURISDICTION
The grant of summary judgment is a final order and thereby gives us jurisdiction over both the grant of summary judgment to Royal and the denial of partial summary judgment to the Rogerses. See Jones-Hamilton Co. v. Beazer Materials & Servs., Inc., 973 F.2d 688, 694 (9th Cir.1992). We have declined to exercise our jurisdiction over denials of summary judgment when reviewing orders granting summary judgment where the record has not been fully developed. Id. at 694 n. 2. Such is not the case here. Moreover, both sides agree that the denial of the Rogerses' motion is properly before us on appeal.
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
I. Constitutional violation:
In assessing a claim of qualified immunity, we must first decide whether “the [official's] conduct violated a constitutional right.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). “Parents and children have a well-elaborated constitutional right to live together without governmental interference.” Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126, 1136 (9th Cir.2000). “The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that parents will not be separated from their children without due process of law except in emergencies.” Mabe v. San Bernardino County, Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir.2001). Officials violate this right if they remove a child from the home absent “information at the time of the seizure that establishes ‘reasonable cause to believe that the child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury and that the scope of the intrusion is reasonably necessary to avert that specific injury.’ ” Id. at 1106 (quoting Wallis, 202 F.3d at 1138). The Fourth Amendment also protects children from removal from their homes absent such a showing. Doe v. Lebbos, 348 F.3d 820, 827 n. 9 (9th Cir.2003). Officials, including social workers, who remove a child from its home without a warrant must have reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to experience serious bodily harm in the time that would be required to obtain a warrant. Mabe, 237 F.3d at 1108.
Serious allegations of abuse that have been investigated and corroborated usually give rise to a “reasonable inference of imminent danger sufficient to justify taking children into temporary custody” if they might again be beaten or molested during the time it would take to get a warrant. Ram v. Rubin, 118 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir.1997). However, an official's prior willingness to leave the children in their home militates against a finding of exigency, as does information that the abuse occurs only on certain dates or at certain times of day. Mabe, 237 F.3d at 1108; Wallis, 202 F.3d at 1140.
Under this standard, the district court correctly concluded that Tommy's bottle rot, the children's malnourishment, and the disorderly conditions in the home did not present an imminent risk of serious bodily harm. This is so whether the disputed factual questions are resolved in favor of appellants or defendants.
At oral argument, Royal conceded that she could have obtained a warrant within hours. There is no indication in the record that so short a delay could have resulted in a significant worsening of the children's physical conditions or an increase in the prospects of long-term harm. Royal testified that she thought, after seeing Tommy's mouth, that he could have an abscess and that he almost certainly had an infection. However, she does not assert that she believed that his condition would worsen if she delayed taking him into custody in order to obtain a warrant. Tommy's teeth may have hurt, but, if so, he had likely been experiencing such pain for a considerable period of time and the “pain” was not so serious that he ceased to be “playful” and “alert.” Under such circumstances, any pain Tommy may have experienced cannot justify a failure to obtain a warrant or the peremptory removal of the children from their parents' custody. Similarly, Royal's testimony, even viewed in the light most favorable to her, does not suggest that the malnourishment in this case was sufficiently serious to justify the children's immediate removal as both were alert and active, and there was no indication of imminent danger. It is worth noting in this respect that when the children eventually reached the hospital, the doctor did not suggest any immediate treatment for Tommy's bottle rot or Shelby's malnutrition.4
Nor do the other circumstances cited by Royal support a finding of exigency, even if her version of all the disputed facts is accepted as true, and even if all of the conditions observed by her are considered collectively. There was no imminent danger of serious bodily harm as a result of Shelby being locked in her room, as this occurred only at night. Cf. Mabe, 237 F.3d at 1108 (concluding that the sexual abuse alleged in that case occurred only at night, so there was time to get a warrant before the child would be in imminent danger). The allegations that the children were also locked up during the day at their parents' workplace, even if true, do not support a finding of imminent risk of serious bodily harm. The chances of accidental injury or of a fire breaking out at the Rogerses' workplace during the few hours that it would take Royal to obtain a warrant were very low. So remote a risk does not establish reasonable cause to believe that the children were in immediate danger.
Similarly, the conditions of the home, even if as unsanitary as Royal asserts, fail to indicate any imminent risk of serious bodily harm. Like the bottle rot, the mess in the Rogers living quarters, to the extent that it may have existed, was a chronic, ongoing problem. The presence of disorderliness and a small amount of droppings, feces, and other matter may increase the risk of eventual illness, but there is no indication in the record of any particular risk that the Rogers children would become seriously ill during the few hours that it would take Royal to obtain a warrant. Likewise, it would have presented no risk to the children to delay the commencement of their toilet-training for a few hours while Royal followed the requisite legal procedures.
Royal also relies on the family's lack of medical insurance and daycare. These conditions present no imminent danger of harm, and Royal does not argue otherwise. Thus, they, too, provide no support for the warrantless removal. It would certainly be preferable for all children to have medical insurance and quality daycare; given the absence of universal provision of such services, however, reliance on factors so closely related to economic status as a justification for removal would border on the unconstitutional.
Royal also argues that the cumulative effect of all of the problems in the Rogers household placed the children in imminent danger. However, her argument falls far short of the mark. Even viewing the factors cumulatively, we have no doubt that there was no imminent danger to either or both of the Rogers children.
Our conclusion that no exigency existed here is also supported by the fact that the Child Protective Services delayed in investigating the case and in removing the children. See Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808, 813 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that a 14-day delay by social workers in entering the family home to investigate a report of abuse is evidence of lack of exigency). Here, the concerned officials classified the case as a ten-day response, indicating that they did not think that any exigency existed. In fact, Royal waited until eleven days after the first referral to visit the house for the first time, and an additional seven days, following the first aborted visit, before returning, for a total delay of eighteen days, four days longer than the delay in Calabretta. That neither Royal nor the other staff members thought that the allegations required immediate action militates against a finding of exigency. When Royal finally returned to the Rogers home, the evidence she observed may, at most, have supported the anonymous tips received by the Services; it is evident, however, that it provided no basis for concern regarding any additional cause of imminent injuries. Royal's actions after seeing the children also tend to support the view that the circumstances were not exigent. Instead of taking prompt action to obtain medical care as we would have expected her to do if she believed that the children faced imminent danger of serious harm to their health, Royal spent close to two hours talking with the family before deciding to remove the children from the parental home. She further delayed in order to wait for someone to bring a car seat rather than calling for an ambulance or other emergency transport. Although Royal did take the children to the hospital when she finally decided to place them in custody, the visit was treated by hospital staff as a routine screening visit, not as an emergency call.
In sum, whether we accept the version of the facts offered by the Rogerses or by Royal, there is no support at all in the record for the conclusion that the Rogers children were likely in imminent danger of serious bodily harm. Thus, we hold that, under any view of the facts, the Rogerses' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when Royal removed the children without a warrant.
II. Reasonable Official:
In order to assess Royal's claim of qualified immunity, we must conduct a two-part analysis: “1) Was the law governing the official's conduct clearly established? 2) Under that law, could a reasonable [official] have believed the conduct was lawful?” Ram, 118 F.3d at 1310 (quoting Carnell v. Grimm, 74 F.3d 977, 978 (9th Cir.1996)). The law was clearly established at the time of the events in this case that a child could not be removed from the home without prior judicial authorization absent evidence of “imminent danger of serious bodily injury and [unless] the scope of the intrusion is reasonably necessary to avert that specific injury.” Mabe, 237 F.3d at 1106; Wallis, 202 F.3d at 1138; Ram, 118 F.3d at 1310.
Notwithstanding this clearly established law, the district court granted Royal qualified immunity, holding that the application of the law to medical neglect was not clearly established. However, it is not necessary that a case be on “all fours” with the facts of the instant case. A right is clearly established if “[t]he contours of the right[are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)). Prior to the events in question, we had repeatedly held that a family's rights were violated if the children were removed absent an imminent risk of serious bodily harm. A reasonable social worker would need nothing more to understand that she may not remove a child from its home on the basis of a medical condition that does not present such a risk.
The district court appeared to be concerned that social workers may have difficulty assessing the imminence of a threat from a particular malady. On that basis, it concluded that without a case specifically analyzing exigency in cases of bottle rot and malnutrition social workers would not be able to determine whether those conditions present an imminent risk of serious bodily harm. Even if it might be difficult for a social worker without medical training to assess the imminence of the threat posed by some dangerous maladies, such is not the case here. One need not be a licensed physician to recognize that in the case of a child who is both alert and active neither bottle rot nor malnutrition is the type of condition that will lead to serious injury if not corrected within a matter of hours. A reasonable social worker could reach no other conclusion. Even Royal stated during her deposition that in her opinion bottle rot does not amount to exigency. Thus, because a reasonable social worker would have understood that the children faced no imminent risk of serious bodily harm, as required by clearly established law, the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to Royal and denying partial summary judgment to the Rogerses.
CONCLUSION
Child abuse and neglect are very serious problems. We applaud the efforts of social workers to address these matters and to protect the vulnerable victims of these crimes. “No one can doubt the importance of this goal.” Cf. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978). However, the rights of families to be free from governmental interference and arbitrary state action are also important. Thus, we must balance, on the one hand, the need to protect children from abuse and neglect and, on the other, the preservation of the essential privacy and liberty interests that families are guaranteed under both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of our Constitution.
Assuming Royal's version of the facts, the Rogers children were in a sorry state and suffering from neglect of a type that could, if their parents' conduct was not modified within a reasonable period of time, lead to long-term harm. Still, the conditions here did not present an imminent risk of serious bodily harm. It would have taken Royal only a few hours to obtain a warrant. In removing the reasonable period of time, lead to long-term harm. Still, the conditions here did not present an imminent risk of serious bodily harm. It would have taken Royal only a few hours to obtain a warrant. In removing the Rogers children from their home without obtaining judicial authorization, Royal violated the Rogerses' clearly established Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The lack of exigency would have been apparent to any reasonable social worker. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to Royal and in denying the Rogerses' motion for partial summary judgment as to Royal.
We REVERSE the grant of summary judgment to Royal and we likewise REVERSE the denial of the Rogerses' partial summary judgment motion with respect to her. We REMAND with instructions to grant partial summary judgment to the Rogerses and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
FOOTNOTES
1. Royal testified that the criteria that separate an emergency response from a ten-day response case varies, but examples of emergency response situations would be physical abuse or sexual abuse when the perpetrator is in the home, or the absence of food from the home.
2. The parties debate whether the Rogerses consented to the entry, but that issue is not before us on appeal. Thus, our decision does not apply to that question, to the extent that it may still be viable in the district court.
3. Royal and Officer Lewis dispute who made the decision to remove the children, with both claiming that the other did so. Royal concedes, however, that this factual dispute is not relevant to the outcome of this appeal because she was ultimately responsible for the decision and could have countermanded it if she had disagreed.
4. Although only the information that Royal had at the time that she made the challenged decision is relevant to the qualified immunity inquiry, the doctor's response is relevant to the question of how serious the children's conditions would have appeared to the reasonable social worker. Baker v. Racansky, 887 F.2d 183, 185 n. 1 (9th Cir.1989).
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge.
United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit
ROGERS v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
Thomas ROGERS; Nicole Rogers, an individual; Steven Kahncock, Guardian ad litem for minors Thomas R. Rogers and Shelby Rogers, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN; Charlotta Royal, individually and in her official capacity as social worker for the County of San Joaquin Human Services Agency; Denise West, individually and in her official capacity as social worker for the County of San Joaquin Human Services Agency; City of Lodi; Dennis Lewis, individually and in his capacity as police officer for the City of Lodi, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-16071.
Argued and Submitted April 16, 2007. -- May 29, 2007
Before: WARREN J. FERGUSON, STEPHEN REINHARDT, and MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judges.
David J. Beauvais, Oakland, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellants.Daniel C. Cederborg, Office of the County Counsel, County of San Joaquin, Stockton, CA, for the defendants-appellees.
The Rogers family brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the conduct of social worker Charlotta Royal in removing the Rogers children from their home without a warrant violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, although the Rogerses' was as to liability only. The district court granted Royal's motion on the basis of qualified immunity. Because we hold that it was clearly established that warrantless removal of children is permissible only in cases of exigency, and that it would have been apparent to a reasonable social worker that no exigency existed in this case, we reverse both the grant of summary judgment to Royal and the denial of partial summary judgment to the Rogerses.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 20, 2001, San Joaquin County Child Protective Services received a report of child neglect in the Rogers home. The caller stated that three-year-old Shelby Rogers (“Shelby”) and five-year-old Thomas Rogers, Jr. (“Tommy”) were not toilet-trained, were locked in their rooms at night and in a room at their parents' business during the day, were not receiving medical or dental care, that Tommy had lost his teeth due to bottle rot, that Shelby was still being fed with a bottle, that their home was dirty and maggot-infested, and that there were unsecured guns in the home. The intake unit did not view this report as requiring an emergency response, but rather classified it as warranting a response within ten days.1 Three days later, before any action had been taken to investigate the report, Child Protective Services received a second, similar report regarding the Rogers children and likewise classified it as requiring a ten-day response.
On August 31, Royal, a social worker with Child Protective Services, visited the Rogers home, but, finding no one there, departed without leaving a message or a note. She returned a week later, on September 7 at 8:30 a.m. Observing that the family was home, Royal called for the assistance of Lodi Police and waited for the officers to arrive before making contact with the family. Officer Dennis Lewis and at least one other police officer responded.
The family was just getting up when Royal and the officers entered their home.2 Royal claimed that following her entry she heard Shelby knocking and asking for her mother from inside a bedroom. The mother, Nicole Rogers (“Nicole”), claims, however, that Shelby was neither knocking nor calling for her.
Officer Lewis asked to see the whole family. Nicole went to Shelby's bedroom and unfastened a latch-type lock to open the door. Shelby emerged from the room dressed in a diaper that, according to Royal, appeared to be soiled. Nicole then retrieved Tommy from his bedroom. Tommy emerged wearing pajamas and a pull-up diaper. Royal saw a thumb lock similar to those used in bathroom doors on the outside of Tommy's bedroom door. Royal believed that both children had been locked in their bedrooms, but Nicole testified that Tommy's bedroom door was not locked. The father, Thomas Rogers (“Thomas”), also got out of bed to talk with Royal and Officer Lewis.
Royal asked why the children had locks on their bedroom doors. Nicole testified that she told Royal that they had never locked Tommy's door, that his room had a lock on the door when they moved into the house, and that they had simply never removed it. According to her testimony, she also stated that they locked Shelby in her room at night because otherwise she would roam the house and get into things while the rest of the family was sleeping. However, Royal testified that Nicole first stated that she locked the children in their rooms only when she showered, and that only after Royal pointed out that Nicole had not been showering when they arrived did she say that she locked Shelby in at night. Royal testified that she believed Nicole had tried to lie to her and that this concerned her. She said that she was also concerned about the children being locked in their bedrooms because it could result in injury due to lack of supervision or as a result of a fire, and could restrict their access to the bathroom. Royal told the Rogerses that they would have to remove the locks. Nicole testified that she agreed to do so, but Royal contended that the Rogerses did not respond to her statement.
Royal asked why the children were still in diapers. The Rogerses testified that they replied that they were “working with” Tommy, and that while they put a pull-up diaper on him at night, he was “doing good during the day.” They said that Shelby was not yet toilet-trained. Royal testified, however, that Nicole told her that “she hadn't had time” to toilet-train the children.
Royal and Officer Lewis inspected Tommy's mouth. Tommy suffered from severe bottle rot. Several of his teeth were missing and his remaining teeth were yellow and showed signs of decay. His mother acknowledged during her deposition that Tommy's mouth had looked “horrible.” Nicole told Royal that Tommy had never complained of pain. She said that a dentist had told her that Tommy needed surgery, and she had scheduled an appointment but cancelled it out of fear that Tommy would be harmed, after she and her husband saw a television program about a child dying while under general anesthesia. Royal testified that she believed that this meant the Rogerses were unwilling to take Tommy to the dentist.
Royal asked if the family had medical insurance. According to Nicole, she answered that they did not have medical insurance at the moment but that she was waiting for an application, at which point Royal asked for proof that she had ever had insurance and Nicole showed her old membership cards for Kaiser. Nicole testified that Royal then asked her if the cards were active and she replied that they were not. Royal, however, stated that Nicole first told her that they had medical insurance and then attempted to deceive her by showing her inactive cards when she asked for proof. This, according to Royal, caused her further to doubt Nicole's honesty.
Royal observed that the children had multiple circular bruises on their legs. Nicole stated that the children were always falling down. Royal also observed that Shelby had a large scratch on the side of her face. Nicole and Thomas told Royal that Shelby sustained the scratch when she fell off a chair at their workplace. They explained that they worked in an auto shop in San Leandro and that they took the children with them to work every day. Royal testified that she did not think that the children were being physically abused. She was concerned, however, that, because the children were taken to their parents' place of business every day, they were isolated and would not be seen by pre-school teachers or others who would be required to report suspected abuse.
Royal also observed that Shelby had unkempt hair that appeared to be thin and missing in some areas and that both children were very pale. She believed that the thinning hair could indicate malnutrition and the pale skin could be due to a vitamin deficiency or lack of sunlight. She observed, however, that the refrigerator and kitchen cabinets were well stocked with food and that the bathroom had the necessary toiletries. She told the Rogerses that the children looked very pale and sickly, and that they could be suffering from a vitamin deficiency or from lack of sunlight. Nicole responded that their pale complexion and Shelby's thin hair were due to the fact that their father has pale skin and fine hair.
The parties dispute the condition of the Rogers home. Royal and Officer Lewis stated that they observed piles of dirty dishes and an overflowing garbage receptacle in the kitchen, as well as piles of dirty clothing scattered about the kitchen, living room and bedrooms. Thomas testified, however, that the garbage receptacles were only partly full. He also testified that the reason for the piles of clothing was that the washer and dryer were broken.
Royal stated that she observed that the children had dirty bedding and mattresses without frames. In Shelby's room, she saw clothing that she believed was dirty scattered on the floor. The Rogerses do not dispute that the children did not have bedframes, but testified that the clothing and bedding were clean. Thomas also testified that Shelby's clothes were on the floor because she had a habit of pulling them out of her dresser to play dress-up. In Tommy's room, Royal observed a brown substance that she believed to be feces smeared on the wall and a substance that she thought was rat droppings on the floor. Officer Lewis observed what he thought was vomit in the bottom drawer of a night stand. Tommy told Royal that the substance on the wall was a smashed graham cracker. The Rogerses testified that the alleged rat droppings on the floor actually consisted of small grains of filling that came out of a broken hacky sack ball, and the purported vomit, like the smears on the wall, was the remains of broken graham crackers.
There were five guns in the Rogerses' bedroom, four of which were unloaded and stored in the closet, and one of which was loaded and kept in the dresser next to the Rogerses' bed. Thomas testified that ammunition for the guns remained in the closet in a childproof container. Nicole testified that the gun in the dresser had a trigger lock with a key, and the key was located in a jewelry box mounted on the wall.
Royal stated that after her conversation with the Rogerses and her observations of the condition of the home, she believed that the Rogers children had been neglected for some time and that there was an imminent risk to their physical health and safety. Based on this opinion, Royal chose to remove them from their home immediately and place them in the custody of Child Protective Services.3 Royal did not offer the Rogerses alternative accommodations, medical referrals for the children, or services from the agency whereby the children could remain at home. Royal also did not obtain a warrant.
Royal called for a car seat and, when it arrived, transported the children to Lodi Memorial Hospital. She testified that Tommy complained of mouth pain while at the hospital. She also testified that an attending nurse stated that the children appeared to be malnourished and suffering from a vitamin deficiency. The doctor who saw the children stated in his evaluation that both were “alert” and “playful,” but had “poor hygiene.” The doctor wrote that Tommy had “many teeth missing” and that Shelby's hair was “sparse, brittle.” The doctor also wrote that the purpose of the visit was “medical clearance prior to [Child Protective Services] placement” and classified the visit as routine rather than emergency.
After the medical clearance the children were placed in a shelter. Tommy did not receive any dental care that day or at any time while in the County's custody. The children were returned to their parents on September 20, 2001, after the Rogerses made changes to their home and lifestyle as required by Child Protective Services, obtained medical insurance, and arranged for Tommy to have oral surgery. As a result of their time in custody, according to their mother, the children became concerned about being separated from their parents. Nicole further testified that Tommy, in particular, “lost trust in people in general” because of the experience.
The Rogerses appealed the grant of summary judgment to Royal as well as the denial of their own motion for partial summary judgment as to Royal.
JURISDICTION
The grant of summary judgment is a final order and thereby gives us jurisdiction over both the grant of summary judgment to Royal and the denial of partial summary judgment to the Rogerses. See Jones-Hamilton Co. v. Beazer Materials & Servs., Inc., 973 F.2d 688, 694 (9th Cir.1992). We have declined to exercise our jurisdiction over denials of summary judgment when reviewing orders granting summary judgment where the record has not been fully developed. Id. at 694 n. 2. Such is not the case here. Moreover, both sides agree that the denial of the Rogerses' motion is properly before us on appeal.
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
I. Constitutional violation:
In assessing a claim of qualified immunity, we must first decide whether “the [official's] conduct violated a constitutional right.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). “Parents and children have a well-elaborated constitutional right to live together without governmental interference.” Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126, 1136 (9th Cir.2000). “The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that parents will not be separated from their children without due process of law except in emergencies.” Mabe v. San Bernardino County, Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir.2001). Officials violate this right if they remove a child from the home absent “information at the time of the seizure that establishes ‘reasonable cause to believe that the child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury and that the scope of the intrusion is reasonably necessary to avert that specific injury.’ ” Id. at 1106 (quoting Wallis, 202 F.3d at 1138). The Fourth Amendment also protects children from removal from their homes absent such a showing. Doe v. Lebbos, 348 F.3d 820, 827 n. 9 (9th Cir.2003). Officials, including social workers, who remove a child from its home without a warrant must have reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to experience serious bodily harm in the time that would be required to obtain a warrant. Mabe, 237 F.3d at 1108.
Serious allegations of abuse that have been investigated and corroborated usually give rise to a “reasonable inference of imminent danger sufficient to justify taking children into temporary custody” if they might again be beaten or molested during the time it would take to get a warrant. Ram v. Rubin, 118 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir.1997). However, an official's prior willingness to leave the children in their home militates against a finding of exigency, as does information that the abuse occurs only on certain dates or at certain times of day. Mabe, 237 F.3d at 1108; Wallis, 202 F.3d at 1140.
Under this standard, the district court correctly concluded that Tommy's bottle rot, the children's malnourishment, and the disorderly conditions in the home did not present an imminent risk of serious bodily harm. This is so whether the disputed factual questions are resolved in favor of appellants or defendants.
At oral argument, Royal conceded that she could have obtained a warrant within hours. There is no indication in the record that so short a delay could have resulted in a significant worsening of the children's physical conditions or an increase in the prospects of long-term harm. Royal testified that she thought, after seeing Tommy's mouth, that he could have an abscess and that he almost certainly had an infection. However, she does not assert that she believed that his condition would worsen if she delayed taking him into custody in order to obtain a warrant. Tommy's teeth may have hurt, but, if so, he had likely been experiencing such pain for a considerable period of time and the “pain” was not so serious that he ceased to be “playful” and “alert.” Under such circumstances, any pain Tommy may have experienced cannot justify a failure to obtain a warrant or the peremptory removal of the children from their parents' custody. Similarly, Royal's testimony, even viewed in the light most favorable to her, does not suggest that the malnourishment in this case was sufficiently serious to justify the children's immediate removal as both were alert and active, and there was no indication of imminent danger. It is worth noting in this respect that when the children eventually reached the hospital, the doctor did not suggest any immediate treatment for Tommy's bottle rot or Shelby's malnutrition.4
Nor do the other circumstances cited by Royal support a finding of exigency, even if her version of all the disputed facts is accepted as true, and even if all of the conditions observed by her are considered collectively. There was no imminent danger of serious bodily harm as a result of Shelby being locked in her room, as this occurred only at night. Cf. Mabe, 237 F.3d at 1108 (concluding that the sexual abuse alleged in that case occurred only at night, so there was time to get a warrant before the child would be in imminent danger). The allegations that the children were also locked up during the day at their parents' workplace, even if true, do not support a finding of imminent risk of serious bodily harm. The chances of accidental injury or of a fire breaking out at the Rogerses' workplace during the few hours that it would take Royal to obtain a warrant were very low. So remote a risk does not establish reasonable cause to believe that the children were in immediate danger.
Similarly, the conditions of the home, even if as unsanitary as Royal asserts, fail to indicate any imminent risk of serious bodily harm. Like the bottle rot, the mess in the Rogers living quarters, to the extent that it may have existed, was a chronic, ongoing problem. The presence of disorderliness and a small amount of droppings, feces, and other matter may increase the risk of eventual illness, but there is no indication in the record of any particular risk that the Rogers children would become seriously ill during the few hours that it would take Royal to obtain a warrant. Likewise, it would have presented no risk to the children to delay the commencement of their toilet-training for a few hours while Royal followed the requisite legal procedures.
Royal also relies on the family's lack of medical insurance and daycare. These conditions present no imminent danger of harm, and Royal does not argue otherwise. Thus, they, too, provide no support for the warrantless removal. It would certainly be preferable for all children to have medical insurance and quality daycare; given the absence of universal provision of such services, however, reliance on factors so closely related to economic status as a justification for removal would border on the unconstitutional.
Royal also argues that the cumulative effect of all of the problems in the Rogers household placed the children in imminent danger. However, her argument falls far short of the mark. Even viewing the factors cumulatively, we have no doubt that there was no imminent danger to either or both of the Rogers children.
Our conclusion that no exigency existed here is also supported by the fact that the Child Protective Services delayed in investigating the case and in removing the children. See Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808, 813 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that a 14-day delay by social workers in entering the family home to investigate a report of abuse is evidence of lack of exigency). Here, the concerned officials classified the case as a ten-day response, indicating that they did not think that any exigency existed. In fact, Royal waited until eleven days after the first referral to visit the house for the first time, and an additional seven days, following the first aborted visit, before returning, for a total delay of eighteen days, four days longer than the delay in Calabretta. That neither Royal nor the other staff members thought that the allegations required immediate action militates against a finding of exigency. When Royal finally returned to the Rogers home, the evidence she observed may, at most, have supported the anonymous tips received by the Services; it is evident, however, that it provided no basis for concern regarding any additional cause of imminent injuries. Royal's actions after seeing the children also tend to support the view that the circumstances were not exigent. Instead of taking prompt action to obtain medical care as we would have expected her to do if she believed that the children faced imminent danger of serious harm to their health, Royal spent close to two hours talking with the family before deciding to remove the children from the parental home. She further delayed in order to wait for someone to bring a car seat rather than calling for an ambulance or other emergency transport. Although Royal did take the children to the hospital when she finally decided to place them in custody, the visit was treated by hospital staff as a routine screening visit, not as an emergency call.
In sum, whether we accept the version of the facts offered by the Rogerses or by Royal, there is no support at all in the record for the conclusion that the Rogers children were likely in imminent danger of serious bodily harm. Thus, we hold that, under any view of the facts, the Rogerses' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when Royal removed the children without a warrant.
II. Reasonable Official:
In order to assess Royal's claim of qualified immunity, we must conduct a two-part analysis: “1) Was the law governing the official's conduct clearly established? 2) Under that law, could a reasonable [official] have believed the conduct was lawful?” Ram, 118 F.3d at 1310 (quoting Carnell v. Grimm, 74 F.3d 977, 978 (9th Cir.1996)). The law was clearly established at the time of the events in this case that a child could not be removed from the home without prior judicial authorization absent evidence of “imminent danger of serious bodily injury and [unless] the scope of the intrusion is reasonably necessary to avert that specific injury.” Mabe, 237 F.3d at 1106; Wallis, 202 F.3d at 1138; Ram, 118 F.3d at 1310.
Notwithstanding this clearly established law, the district court granted Royal qualified immunity, holding that the application of the law to medical neglect was not clearly established. However, it is not necessary that a case be on “all fours” with the facts of the instant case. A right is clearly established if “[t]he contours of the right[are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)). Prior to the events in question, we had repeatedly held that a family's rights were violated if the children were removed absent an imminent risk of serious bodily harm. A reasonable social worker would need nothing more to understand that she may not remove a child from its home on the basis of a medical condition that does not present such a risk.
The district court appeared to be concerned that social workers may have difficulty assessing the imminence of a threat from a particular malady. On that basis, it concluded that without a case specifically analyzing exigency in cases of bottle rot and malnutrition social workers would not be able to determine whether those conditions present an imminent risk of serious bodily harm. Even if it might be difficult for a social worker without medical training to assess the imminence of the threat posed by some dangerous maladies, such is not the case here. One need not be a licensed physician to recognize that in the case of a child who is both alert and active neither bottle rot nor malnutrition is the type of condition that will lead to serious injury if not corrected within a matter of hours. A reasonable social worker could reach no other conclusion. Even Royal stated during her deposition that in her opinion bottle rot does not amount to exigency. Thus, because a reasonable social worker would have understood that the children faced no imminent risk of serious bodily harm, as required by clearly established law, the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to Royal and denying partial summary judgment to the Rogerses.
CONCLUSION
Child abuse and neglect are very serious problems. We applaud the efforts of social workers to address these matters and to protect the vulnerable victims of these crimes. “No one can doubt the importance of this goal.” Cf. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978). However, the rights of families to be free from governmental interference and arbitrary state action are also important. Thus, we must balance, on the one hand, the need to protect children from abuse and neglect and, on the other, the preservation of the essential privacy and liberty interests that families are guaranteed under both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of our Constitution.
Assuming Royal's version of the facts, the Rogers children were in a sorry state and suffering from neglect of a type that could, if their parents' conduct was not modified within a reasonable period of time, lead to long-term harm. Still, the conditions here did not present an imminent risk of serious bodily harm. It would have taken Royal only a few hours to obtain a warrant. In removing the reasonable period of time, lead to long-term harm. Still, the conditions here did not present an imminent risk of serious bodily harm. It would have taken Royal only a few hours to obtain a warrant. In removing the Rogers children from their home without obtaining judicial authorization, Royal violated the Rogerses' clearly established Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The lack of exigency would have been apparent to any reasonable social worker. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to Royal and in denying the Rogerses' motion for partial summary judgment as to Royal.
We REVERSE the grant of summary judgment to Royal and we likewise REVERSE the denial of the Rogerses' partial summary judgment motion with respect to her. We REMAND with instructions to grant partial summary judgment to the Rogerses and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
FOOTNOTES
1. Royal testified that the criteria that separate an emergency response from a ten-day response case varies, but examples of emergency response situations would be physical abuse or sexual abuse when the perpetrator is in the home, or the absence of food from the home.
2. The parties debate whether the Rogerses consented to the entry, but that issue is not before us on appeal. Thus, our decision does not apply to that question, to the extent that it may still be viable in the district court.
3. Royal and Officer Lewis dispute who made the decision to remove the children, with both claiming that the other did so. Royal concedes, however, that this factual dispute is not relevant to the outcome of this appeal because she was ultimately responsible for the decision and could have countermanded it if she had disagreed.
4. Although only the information that Royal had at the time that she made the challenged decision is relevant to the qualified immunity inquiry, the doctor's response is relevant to the question of how serious the children's conditions would have appeared to the reasonable social worker. Baker v. Racansky, 887 F.2d 183, 185 n. 1 (9th Cir.1989).
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge.
Parents’ Participation in Child Protection Practice: Toward Respect and Inclusion
Here is a very good article about the importance of the involvement of parents in CPS cases. It is talking about Australia but it sounds very much like the way CPS handles things here in the US. In part it states:
Parents reported a range of difficulties in interactions with practitioners, including family-related and systemic factors; the most common grievances involved poor communication practices and negative worker attitudes, which created further disengagement. Conversely, interactions involving a willingness to listen, support, and provide for goal-focused plans were seen as facilitating positive outcomes. Taking into account the case complexity and interrelationships between workers’ and clients’ attitudes and behaviours, we discuss strategies for promoting parents’ participation.
Despite increased awareness of the benefits of involving parents in child protection practice, research with parents has documented widespread perceptions of exclusion and powerlessness (Kapp & Propp, 2002; Thorpe, 2008). Broadly speaking, key issues running through these studies are that interactions tend to be adversarial, with parents being placed in a position of having to respond to the case that has been made (Hall & Slembrouck, 2001; Thomson & Thorpe, 2004), and practitioners tend to focus on parents’ weaknesses, paying little attention to their caregiving qualities or child-rearing competence (Budd et al., 2001).
Read the rest of the article here - http://www.familiesinsociety.org/ArticleArchive/2011/92-3%20Healy.pdf
Parents reported a range of difficulties in interactions with practitioners, including family-related and systemic factors; the most common grievances involved poor communication practices and negative worker attitudes, which created further disengagement. Conversely, interactions involving a willingness to listen, support, and provide for goal-focused plans were seen as facilitating positive outcomes. Taking into account the case complexity and interrelationships between workers’ and clients’ attitudes and behaviours, we discuss strategies for promoting parents’ participation.
Despite increased awareness of the benefits of involving parents in child protection practice, research with parents has documented widespread perceptions of exclusion and powerlessness (Kapp & Propp, 2002; Thorpe, 2008). Broadly speaking, key issues running through these studies are that interactions tend to be adversarial, with parents being placed in a position of having to respond to the case that has been made (Hall & Slembrouck, 2001; Thomson & Thorpe, 2004), and practitioners tend to focus on parents’ weaknesses, paying little attention to their caregiving qualities or child-rearing competence (Budd et al., 2001).
Read the rest of the article here - http://www.familiesinsociety.org/ArticleArchive/2011/92-3%20Healy.pdf
Sen. Wyden Introduces Bill Promoting Accountability and Excellence in Child Welfare
Bill paves way for cost-saving collaboration and better lives for vulnerable children and families.
Washington, D.C. August 08, 2011
The Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP) and First Focus applaud Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden for his vision and commitment to improving the lives of those in the child welfare system.
“As a country, we cannot afford to let children fall through the cracks of the many systems that exist to serve them,” said Wyden. “By targeting our resources, improving collaboration, spurring innovation, and—above all—holding ourselves accountable, we can systemically serve the best interest of at-risk children, their families and communities, and the nation as a whole.”
The Promoting Accountability and Excellence in Child Welfare Act has the potential to save the federal government money (with current spending on foster care amounting to roughly 10 times more than that on prevention), establish concrete performance measures that emphasize significant results and encourage interagency and public/private collaboration - all to improve the well-being of children and youth. In addition, the bill provides strategies that maximize existing federal funding.
“It’s our nation’s responsibility to protect the best interest of our most vulnerable children. However, in today’s policymaking climate, solutions for addressing the challenges facing children in foster care are often missing from the conversations on Capitol Hill,” said Bruce Lesley, President of the First Focus Campaign for Children, a bipartisan advocacy group. “We applaud Senator Wyden for spearheading this much needed legislation that will promote the well-being of children and families in the child welfare system and spur broader reform of the current federal financing structure.”
The bill would help states continue their efforts to prevent youth from entering foster care and lessen a child’s time in the system, while also encouraging strengthened support services to children and youth so they do not fall behind their peers. The bill provides states with the flexibility to determine the specific methods through which improved outcomes for children and youth will be achieved, based on best practices and in collaboration with foster parents, biological parents, kinship caregivers and youth. These interventions not only protect a child, but they help contribute to their current and future well-being.
“The proposed legislation, among other things, would encourage and support states’ most innovative efforts to ensure that children in the child welfare system are healthy, successful in school and that their social and emotional health are attended to,” said Frank Farrow, director of CSSP. “It recognizes that child welfare agencies alone cannot provide everything a child and family need in order to thrive and creates incentives for partnerships between child welfare agencies and schools, housing and employment services and health and mental health agencies. And, it establishes strong performance measures so that successful innovations can serve as scalable models into the future.”
About The Center for the Study of Social Policy
The Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP) is a nonprofit public policy, research and technical assistance organization. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., CSSP works with state and federal policymakers and with communities across the country. Its mission is to create new ideas and promote public policies that produce equal opportunities and better futures for all children and families, especially those most often left behind. Using data, extensive community experience and a focus on results, CSSP’s work covers several broad areas, including promoting public policies that strengthen vulnerable families; mobilizing a national network to prevent child abuse and promote optimal development for young children; assisting tough neighborhoods with the tools needed to help parents and their children succeed; educating residents to be effective consumers securing better goods and services and reforming child welfare systems. For more information on the Center for the Study of Social Policy, visit http://www.cssp.org.
About First Focus
First Focus is a bipartisan advocacy organization dedicated to making children and families a priority in federal policy and budget decisions. First Focus takes a unique approach to children’s advocacy, engaging both traditional and non-traditional partners in a broad range of efforts to increase federal investments in programs that address the needs of our nation’s children. In all of our work, we seek to raise awareness regarding public policies impacting children and families and to ensure that related programs have the resources necessary to help children grow up in a healthy and nurturing environment. For more information on First Focus visit http://www.firstfocus.net.
Washington, D.C. August 08, 2011
The Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP) and First Focus applaud Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden for his vision and commitment to improving the lives of those in the child welfare system.
“As a country, we cannot afford to let children fall through the cracks of the many systems that exist to serve them,” said Wyden. “By targeting our resources, improving collaboration, spurring innovation, and—above all—holding ourselves accountable, we can systemically serve the best interest of at-risk children, their families and communities, and the nation as a whole.”
The Promoting Accountability and Excellence in Child Welfare Act has the potential to save the federal government money (with current spending on foster care amounting to roughly 10 times more than that on prevention), establish concrete performance measures that emphasize significant results and encourage interagency and public/private collaboration - all to improve the well-being of children and youth. In addition, the bill provides strategies that maximize existing federal funding.
“It’s our nation’s responsibility to protect the best interest of our most vulnerable children. However, in today’s policymaking climate, solutions for addressing the challenges facing children in foster care are often missing from the conversations on Capitol Hill,” said Bruce Lesley, President of the First Focus Campaign for Children, a bipartisan advocacy group. “We applaud Senator Wyden for spearheading this much needed legislation that will promote the well-being of children and families in the child welfare system and spur broader reform of the current federal financing structure.”
The bill would help states continue their efforts to prevent youth from entering foster care and lessen a child’s time in the system, while also encouraging strengthened support services to children and youth so they do not fall behind their peers. The bill provides states with the flexibility to determine the specific methods through which improved outcomes for children and youth will be achieved, based on best practices and in collaboration with foster parents, biological parents, kinship caregivers and youth. These interventions not only protect a child, but they help contribute to their current and future well-being.
“The proposed legislation, among other things, would encourage and support states’ most innovative efforts to ensure that children in the child welfare system are healthy, successful in school and that their social and emotional health are attended to,” said Frank Farrow, director of CSSP. “It recognizes that child welfare agencies alone cannot provide everything a child and family need in order to thrive and creates incentives for partnerships between child welfare agencies and schools, housing and employment services and health and mental health agencies. And, it establishes strong performance measures so that successful innovations can serve as scalable models into the future.”
About The Center for the Study of Social Policy
The Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP) is a nonprofit public policy, research and technical assistance organization. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., CSSP works with state and federal policymakers and with communities across the country. Its mission is to create new ideas and promote public policies that produce equal opportunities and better futures for all children and families, especially those most often left behind. Using data, extensive community experience and a focus on results, CSSP’s work covers several broad areas, including promoting public policies that strengthen vulnerable families; mobilizing a national network to prevent child abuse and promote optimal development for young children; assisting tough neighborhoods with the tools needed to help parents and their children succeed; educating residents to be effective consumers securing better goods and services and reforming child welfare systems. For more information on the Center for the Study of Social Policy, visit http://www.cssp.org.
About First Focus
First Focus is a bipartisan advocacy organization dedicated to making children and families a priority in federal policy and budget decisions. First Focus takes a unique approach to children’s advocacy, engaging both traditional and non-traditional partners in a broad range of efforts to increase federal investments in programs that address the needs of our nation’s children. In all of our work, we seek to raise awareness regarding public policies impacting children and families and to ensure that related programs have the resources necessary to help children grow up in a healthy and nurturing environment. For more information on First Focus visit http://www.firstfocus.net.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)