Suppose, when he was attorney general, John Ashcroft had proposed anti-terrorism legislation with the following provisions:
Special anti-terrorism police could search any home without a warrant – and
strip search any occupant -- based solely on an anonymous telephone tip. Any occupant of the home could be detained for 24 hours to two weeks without so much as a hearing – and they’ll probably be detained far longer because, in the special anti-terrorism court set up by this legislation, all the judges are afraid to look soft on “terrorists.”
At that first hearing the detainees may – or may not – get a lawyer just before the hearing begins, and they almost never get effective counsel.
At almost every stage, the standard of proof is not “beyond a reasonable doubt” or even “clear and convincing” but merely “preponderance of the evidence,” the lowest standard in American jurisprudence, the same one used to determine which insurance company pays for a fender-bender.
And in most states, all the hearings and all the records are secret.
Had Ashcroft proposed such legislation, civil libertarians would have been in an uproar. Yet this is, in fact, the law governing child welfare. And sadly, many who in other circumstances are quick to defend civil liberties either stand silent or support it.
The National Coalition for Child Protection Reform believes the only way truly to protect children is to demand civil liberties without exception. There can be no true child protection when a government agency is given virtually unchecked power, almost no accountability, and operates in secret.
That is why enacting meaningful due process protections for families is at least as important as improving the “services” they receive from child welfare agencies.
The preceding text was taken from a NCCPR report.
CIVIL LIBERTIES WITHOUT EXCEPTION
