When The Child Protective Agency Comes Knocking On Your Door

By Barbara Dwyer,
JIC, Kentucky J.A.I.L.4judges

[The following account is based on a true story. Names, and location have been changed.]

An average day, filled with the hustle and bustle of life, the unsuspecting family is unconcerned for the visit that they are about to have from the County Social Child Welfare Agency. A knock on the door draws the family's attention away from its projects and onto the excitement of a visitor. To the dismay of the family, rather than finding a friendly visitor calling, they are plunged into a world of guilty until proven innocent, where basic fundamental rights are put aside for the sake of the children.

A Police officer and Social Service Child Welfare Agent introduce themselves and inform the family that they are subject of an investigation, because an unknown neighbor filed a complaint. Declaring they have the authority to enter the family home, search it or question the children without an Attorney present, or a warrant, while letting the family know that if they do not voluntarily cooperate they will have their children removed. This is more common than we like to think about.

On November 26th, 2002 the Division of Protection and Permanency, of Local County Kentucky (Child Protection Agency) received a complaint from an undisclosed neighbor alleging that the John Doe family was not educating their children, and the children had been seen playing with loaded weapons inside and outside of the Doe home. According to KRS 620.040 the Child Protection officer must respond to the allegation by an in home investigation. Let it be stated that the John Doe family home schools for their children and they are all living History historical re-enactors and the alleged weapons the children were seen playing with were in reality non-operable historical replicas of black powder pistol and rifle.

After John Doe answered the door, the social worker explained that a complaint had been received at their office concerning the children's safety, and that they needed to come into the home to question the children. John Doe (hereinafter referred to as JD) asked what the complaint was about. Social Service officer avoided answering the question, requesting once again to just come in and speak with the children. JD asked if they had a warrant to enter the home? The Social Service officer responded, I am a Social Worker, I do not need a search warrant to come in and talk to the children. JD finding it hard to believe that such could be true in Kentucky State, asked the Social Service officer to show the Statute granting such authority. Taken back by JD's lack of instant compliance, the Social Service officer became impatient and let JD know that if he did not comply with the investigation, under Kentucky State law, a warrant could be obtained instantly and the children removed from the home based on default of parental compliance.

JD asked the Social Service officer and the Police officer to wait outside, making it clear that until legal counsel could be notified and a copy of the statute was provided, the investigation would be postponed. JD also made it clear, he was not refusing compliance with an investigation. JD respectfully placed both officers on legal notice reading to them: U.S.C. Title 18, Sec. 241 & 242 U.S.C. Title 42, 1983, 1985, 1986. If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise of enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same: or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with the intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured- They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years or both: Following this JD stated that the Police officer and the Social Service officer were infringing upon their right to pursue happiness as well as their right to be secure in their persons, and houses. In response, the Social Service officer and the PD officer agreed reluctantly, to wait outside.

JD's legal advisors explained that under Kentucky Statute 620.040 5(a) If, after receiving the report [of alleged abuse], law enforcement officer, the cabinet, or its designated representative cannot gain admission to the location of the child, a search warrant SHALL be requested from, and may be issued by, the judge to the appropriate law enforcement official upon probable cause that the child is discovered and appears to be in imminent danger, the child may be removed by the law enforcement officer.

Let's take a closer look at this Statute: The cabinet is the Cabinet For Families and Children. The designated representative is the Social Service worker of the Division of Protection and Permanency, also called a case worker. Under the authority granted by the above statute, the caseworker and the police officer can enter your home prior to obtaining a warrant. If you do not comply with the in home investigation, the officers have no option but to request the warrant for the removal of the child(ren): Shall be requested. At that point, the Judge in the new Kentucky State Family Court has the burden to decide whether or not upon probable cause, that the child is discovered and appears to be in imminent danger a warrant for removal is in order.

Technically, probable cause is a limiting factor. However, the only data the Judge has to go by is the alleged report from a supposed witness, and the fact that the parent(s) have not complied, by not addressing the points in question. Most often the Judge will rule in favor of the only data provided, that being the allegation, and make a ruling on the safe side for the sake of the children. Remember, you are guilty until proven innocent under the new Kentucky Family Courts. In such a case the burden would be on the parents to get their children back, after you have proved to the SAME judge your innocence and cause for noncompliance. You would already be in disfavor with the judge, your children traumatized by undue separation and the stigma of having your children removed from your home, will follow you in the minds of your community, regardless of your innocence.

Compliance with the investigation is another one of the Orwellian slights of mind: It is called voluntary compliance. The options facing the citizens in Kentucky are 1.) Voluntarily comply, and diffuse the question of the children's safety. Or 2.) refuse to comply, stand your ground, as you will be meeting up with a warrant for the removal of your children.

NOTE: the children cannot be removed prior to the warrant being requested by the judge, unless the Police officer sees an IMMEDIATE danger, in which he will have to prove probable cause. Many factors enter into the law enforcement officer's decision in doing so. The officer has powers of discretion. He/she may likely have children of their own. It often takes pretty drastic measure for an officer to remove a child from a home without a warrant. His job is on the line as well as his relationship with his community. I maintain that most officers are decent folks, looking to protect the safety and rights of the individual, as well as the community. Furthermore, the only individual authorized to remove the children are duly sworn law enforcement officers. The Social Service caseworker cannot remove the child(ren).

With an increase in wrongful child removal, and the damage that has been caused emotionally, mentally and at times physically to the children by the Social Services investigative methods, as well as inappropriate placement of children into foster homes that are damaging to the Childs welfare, many parents are becoming increasingly distrustful of any compliance with Social Service investigations. This is understandable. Each parent must take into consideration all the aspects above in deciding their response to the Social Services. Complying with a home investigation does not mean accepting all the terms or requests stated by the caseworker.

JD set the terms for which the investigation was to be conducted. He told the Social Service caseworker that he would comply with the in home investigation only under the condition that the investigation be conducted on video and audio documentation. Furthermore, JD would retain the right to answer only the questions pertaining to the allegations. The Social Services is trained to ask a series of questions that in my opinion are not constitutionally appropriate. For example: if the allegations are concerning adequate diet of the children, the social services has no basis for asking if you have fire arms, are a registered voter, what color your underwear are, or what social clubs you attend. These questions do not pertain to the case. The Social Services however will try and ask questions that do not pertain as that is what they are trained to do.

At first the Social Service case worker was opposed to the on video investigation, and attempted to intimidate JD by stating the they will just have to get the warrant for the removal of the children. JD asked both the officers, On the record, I am stating that I am complying with your in home investigation of the complaint that your office received, only in the presence of video documentation; are you refusing to conduct the investigation? The caseworker called into her supervisor for advice, and to request a copy of the Statute. Reluctantly, she agreed to the video surveillance investigation.

JD invited both the caseworker and the Police officer into the home, and introduced them to the children, and the family's friendly dog. Offering them a seat in the living room, the investigation was conducted. The caseworker asked questions pertaining to the complaint received, which the children answered. She asked them if they were happy in their home and they said, Yes. She asked them if they liked being home schooled, and again the children answered, Yes, we wouldn't want to be in any other school. She asked the children about playing with weapons, to which they laughed and said, we play with fake plastic toy fire arms. The caseworker asked for the children's names and ages, and social security numbers. The children provided their names and ages, but did not disclosed a social security #, as that does not pertain to the investigation.

JD was asked if there were weapons accessible to the children, which he assured them they had no weapons. The Social Services asked a few questions regarding the home schooling of the children to which JD assured them, the children were being educated. After a prolonged period of silence on the part of the caseworker, JD asked if there were any further questions. With no further questions the caseworker and officer were escorted to the door. JD remained polite, while providing direction. The Social Service after receiving the initial complaint has 72 hours to conduct their investigation, and give written notification of termination of the investigation or take the steps for charges to be brought against the parents in question.

The following day, JD and the children meet with the caseworker at their office, to provide for the case record, a copy of a statement of religious cause for the education of the children as well as a copy of the Kentucky State Constitution, Article 5, entitled Right of Religious Freedom. He also provided the case record with a picture of the family in historical reenactment costume, as well as a community character witness.

JD received written notification from the agency stating that, On the information received through the investigation of this report, the allegations have been UNSUBSTANCIATED.

We have the right in Kentucky State to obtain through the Open Records process a copy of the investigation. It is the Request to Inspect Public Records RE KRS CH. 61 and is Form B-010-1

What have we learned from this account? JD learned that there are some limiting factors provided in the Statute to protect the sanctity of your family, that need to be understood by all guardians and need to be called upon if the Social Services comes knocking on your door. JD also learned that their needs to be more limiting factors applied to the Social Services to protect the welfare and serenity of the home. For example, a scheduled office visit could have answered the Social Services questions regarding the allegations, rather than having the family put in the position of being viewed by the neighborhood as some sort of criminal, having the children intimidated by an intrusive in home investigation, that reminded the children of the movies that they saw about Nazi Germany. Furthermore, there are no limiting factors in the Statue to protect against the Social Service being used by vindictive neighbors, spouses, relatives, or any one not in agreement with the religion, creed life style of the defendant.

Most caseworkers with the Child Protection Agencies are well meaning individuals concerned for the safety of children. There are plenty of true cases of child neglect and abuse that keep the caseworkers busy. The Statute as it is presently written, does not limit the hoaxers, and thus waists the time and resources of the Child welfare Agency and hinders it from providing assistance where truly needed.

What can you do about it? KRS 620.040 needs to be improved upon and revised. Alerting your neighbors, friends, relatives, and community constituents to the need is the beginning. With an increased need for over all Executive, Legislative and Judicial Accountability across this nation and in the State of Kentucky, I urge you to contact the organizations in your State, which are working towards that goal. Be a fully informed juror and a part of the voice of common sense. You can make the difference for your family, community, and Nation.