# Amicus Curiae Brief — Camreta v. Greene

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385015_0596%3A20

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 2011
- **Citation:** 563 U.S. 692

## Text

Nos. 09-1454, 09-1478

Sn The
Supreme Court of the United States

———__—___—__ — ¢ —_ ___ __

BOB CAMRETA,

Petitioner.
\

SARAH GREENE, personally and as next

fmend for S G., a minor, and K.G., a minor
Respondent

7

JAMES ALFORD
Deschutes County Deputy Sheriff,

Petitioner
\

SARAH GREENE. personally and as next
frend for S CG, a minor, and KG. a minor
Respondent
——¢
On Writs Of Certiorari To The

t nited States Court Of Appeals
bor The Ninth Circuit

e

BRIEF OF THE CHILDREN’S LAW
SECTION OF THE STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN
AS AMICUS IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT

e —

MLIZABETH S. WARNER" JoObt M. LATUSZEK
2464 Spring Arbor Rd SPEAKER LAW FIRM PLLC
Jackson, MI 49203 230 N. Sycamore St.
(517) 787-3560 Lansing, MI 48933
eswarner@aol com (517) 4842-8936
‘Counsel of Record jlatuszek@speakerlaw.com

(im REE LAW HIE PRINTING. CF tr Jf ome e

ORE ALL Conlba i'd: Ah

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | iv

INTEREST OF AMICUS ...... |

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .. 2

ARGUMENT... 7
I. FEDERAL LAW HAS SOME VALUE
TO ASSESSING THE POLICY ARGU-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MENTS OF THE PARTIES AND THEIR
AMICL CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS
AND LAWS PROVIDE AN EXPRESSION
OF NATIONAL CHILD WELFARE POL
ICY AND BEST PRACTICES IN CIVIL
AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS OF
CHILDABUSK AND NEGLECT

A. National Child Protection Policy
Seeks Protection Of Children And
Their Families In Child Abuse In
vestigations

Congress Has Made A Finding
That An Incompetent Sexual
Abuse Investigation Can Harm
Children And The Legal System ....

Federal Law Recognizes The Im
portance Of Enforcing The Civil
Rights Of The Family In A Child
Abuse Investigation

Congress Recommends That The
Non-Ollending Parent Be Included
In The lavestipation

4

10

TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued

Page

Bb The Child Has No Legal Protector
Besides A Parent Or A Judge During
The Investigative Phase. The Child’s
Right To Counsel Commences Later
With The Filing Of A Court Depend
Ae ere

NO RESOLUTION ON THE CONSTITU
TIONAL ISSUE CAN BE MADE BASED
ON A FEW STATE LAWS ON CHILD
INTERVIEWS. THE INVESTIGATION
LAWS PROVE POLICE ARE USUALLY
NOT WELCOME AT SCHOOL, STATE
JUDGES ARE ALREADY OBLIGATED
BY STATE LAW AND FEDERAL
COURTS TO DECIDE REQUESTS FOR
INVESTIGATION ORDERS. THEREFORE,
THE JUDICIAL BURDEN OBJECTION

A. State Child Abuse Investigation Laws
Are Similar Due To Federal Funding
Incentives. They Are Not Independent
Policy Choices By States Supporting A
Reasonableness Argument ........ saad

Is State Laws Must Yield To The Con
IIE irouvesxcuauecens ele Cad eee

(. Most Interview Laws Do Not Support
The Police Officer’s Presence At A
PEED BOWIE isc csccncenssstuosascrtoneses

16

17

21

TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued
Page
1). The Juvenile Judiciary Will Not Be
Burdened By A Constitutional Obl
gation To Rule On Requests For In-
vestigation Orders. This Is Already
Part Of Their Duties... 23

lll ALL PARTICIPANTS IN THE CHILD
WELEARE SYSTEM BENEFIT FROM A
COURT DECISION THAT SUPPORTS A
RELIABLE, HUMANE, AND LAWFUL
CHILD INTERVIEW ABOUT ABUSE
QUESTIONABLE INTERVIEWING PRAC
TICKS CREATE AMBIGUITY IN) THE
JUVENILE LEGAL SYSTEM THAT
DOKS NOT FURTHER ITS CHILD
PROTECTION MISSION... ae 27

CONCLUSION... Savetareces ) 33

IV

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US. 570

SINE vis vad ccd acisers Deen dtaudaghenns Bia ntwecden tiskoucckecteuders ee
Ferguson vo City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67

SET Pints ttedrcdsimineededacnateders PE ea ae SCPE ES OF eeu
Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004)......0.0..........6, 27
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 583 U.S. 525

SNE Wisc. sai cscs-dushartnceoctcebalecs Mresooacdbcateauvaen dem eaaacsucbanwan Zi; aa
Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1960) ........... 22
Prince v. Massachusetts, 8321 US. 158 (1944) .. 27
Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999)... e.. 17
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982)... 2, 22
Stanley v. llinois, 405 US. 645 (1972) a iste, oO
Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347 (1992)................19, 20
United States v. Stevens, US , 338

A MS Ue BD aren cecssvax.0s1s0deuscidatcuidteelons ay
PREDERAL Cikcurr CASES:
Darryl H. vw. Coler, 801 F.2d 893 (7th Cir 1986) 26
Dubbs v. Head Start, Inc., 8335 F.3d 1194 (10th

i a oh ivnce sdendcagd sh dcpksernsshocetatoventesiosediaeutubas 26

Good v. Dauphin County Social Services for
Children & Youth, 891 F2d 1087 (8d Cir
SIE dui chevcz as Apcenudedtas wakeeskanas uicnd cette sind innvuseoaenl 25

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page
Gireene vo Camreta, 588 FoSd 1011 (9th Cir.
8 ee so koe LST Bae 2. a.
Roe vo. Texas Dept of Protective & Regulatory
Services, 299 F.2d 395 (5th Cir. 2002) ......0.0........... 25
Tennenbaum ovo. Williams, 193 F.2d 582 (2d Cir.
Sooo) ....... sAedreaibanteiade Gesnceniasciscan sdianasiaiaa’ siadaalaneneesa 2D
Wallts vo. Spencer, 202 2d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000)... 26

KepeKaAL Distrier Cournr CASES:

O'Donnell vo. Brown, 335 ¥. Supp. 2d 7&7 (WD.
ty: Ra ED sen kat oate yeuaueeccasthadesteeasenuceeds 16

Walsh vo Erie County Department of Job &
Family Serowes, 240 F Supp. 2d 731 (NLD.
PU Ison << vussac nuevas ceacesceeviceveickwain cis SUMMER TAesaeeus 17

STATE CASES:

HR wv Alabama Dept of Haman Resources,
612 So.2d 477 (Ala. App. 1992)...0..00000000...... Seadvada sume

State vo. Weaver, 964 P. 2d 713 (Mont. 1998) ....-...... 30

CONSTITUTIONS, STATUTES AND REGULATIONS:
cee Te i i fh -

Een, RN. GUNNING WAP occ sexs excuscacenecisaonkxceserceciins passim

Vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued
Page
FEDERAL STATUTES:

42, U.S.C. § 5106c(a)(1) (2006), Pub. L.. No. 102-
a Serre yecngsa been pendnaieneeemcvnaeesnanesseees wi a

42 USC. § 5101 (note) (2006), Pub. L. No. 102-

295, tit. 1, § 102(aX7), 106 Stat. 188 (1992

CAPTA amendment) ..................-.--.-.---- scideaatnaeualoel 1]
42 U.S.C. § 510Gal(bM2MA OID)... eee cence eee eeeeeeeee 15
42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2 xix) (2006) .... eee neces 11
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of

1980, 42 U.S.C. §§ 670 to 676 (2006). ..000 19

Adoption Promotion Act of 2003, Pub. L. No.
108-145, 117 Stat. 1879, 42 U.S.C. § 673b

POD 5 csc vccccciuccsascccescsnstceccsscesasiecasevardesenteisensessssenss 19
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42
LB... BIO OF Gg. .02..00060c0scccsscece 2000s dtcuancasens passim

Child and Family Services Improvement Act
of 2006, Pub. L. No. 190-288, 120 Stat. 1233,
42 U.S.C. §$ G21 ef seq............. eerste ridislde sx dvaseenedncen 19

lostering Connections to Success and Inereas
ing Adoptions Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110:
351, 122 Stat. 3949, 42 U.S.C. § 1305 (Supp.
RGD oe icsncesee: Li dacheeineacddimatiaphtesipeseanisdeaiesinuntansersesenss 19

Pub. L. No. 93-247 (Jan. 31, 1974), 68 Stat. 4,
42 USC. §§ 5101 to 5119¢ (2006), amended
and reauthorized, Keeping Children and
lamilies Safe Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-
36, 117 Stat. 795 (June 26, 2003) -.............-...----- %, 15

vil

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Pape
cy RIT a TY ee Satta t cei aedad cats 19
Pub. lL. No. 108-36, 1140b)01 )Gxix), 117 Stat. &10....... ))

Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act of
2000, Pub. L. No. 106-134, 114 Stat. 1266
(Oct. 17, 2000), 42 U.S.C. § 670 (2006) .......0.......... 19

Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990, Pub. L. No.
101-647, tit. Il, sub. tit. A, 104 Stat. 4792
(Nov. 29, 1990), 42 U.S.C. §§ 13001 to 13004
(2006)........ icine souks bs aaa sett EL 8,9, 14,15

STATE STATUTES:

Pe Ss BS re Bee CIR iosiinis cides cocsestcdcsdascndacsecceus 24
iden. Cictits B BG Fee Cav ccencisccvecsccsscccsccecoceusccssses 26
Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-510(b) (2009)...............0.00..... 24
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-5-308(3)(b) (West 2005 &

POUND. TOPE isescciesiscvises Sabin abpeneuboeenednedoeines kedeimates 24
16 Del. Code Ann. § 910€a)(1)03) (2003 & Supp.

i eciisteeidsastorsrciniasetn doduatuetiexstswapresntedcctenpercdsceaveden 24
Mla. Stat. Ann. § 39.301(12) (West 2010)................... 24
325 Ill Comp. Stat. 5/7.5 (West 2010) -................ a
lowa Code Ann. § 232.71B.5 (West 2010) .................. 24
eh en RO Oe I ccd wie danbednrsisidesessuawvnebaves y
922 Ky. Adm. Regs. 1:330(S3 ZO) ............0....ccceccsessesees 25

Ky Rev. Stat. Ann. § 620/040(5 a) (Lexis Nexis
PD osivisakscine cusvatcinvanes sunchvesdeceetsseenioeesie spiabonnesyecsetys 2D

Vij)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Pape
La. Child Code 613(A) (2004 )...............0. 00... ccc ccc ecee cee 25
Minn. Stat. § 626.556(010)(e)-(1) (West 2011)... 25
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-713 ............... rivdesecceegwianlnwoik 22
N_H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 169-C:34(1V) (West 2002
& Supp. 2010)............... bi satel eli Autlesra Wale Latedide slog taaewsbens 25
N_H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 169-C:38(1V) (West 2002
sic sivitturccsivsns bsecasesbweuneil high nmin ciiice buses 22
BW.Dee. Pett. Aim. BOTS © SB- 0-6-8 occ oicecsccccccecccccccocencs 22
N_Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1034(2) (2009)........0. 0000 25
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-303 (2009).......0...0.. ccc ccecec cece eee 25
RDPO. BOW FORME. GS QEMIIIOD oon c cee cscccneccvessonsecccssss eieeeets 22
».C. Code 1976, § 63-7-380...................... SAL Sh Ear 22
Utah Code Ann. §& 78A-6-106(1) (2003) 0000000000... 25

MISCELLANEOUS:

Timothy LL. Arcaro, Child Victims of Sexual
Abuse and the Law, 12(3) Mich. Child Wel-
ee a Be I ec draroce du cacuihichens Secunda 3, 28, 29

Mark R. Brown, Rescuing Children from Abu-
sive Parents: The Constitutional Value of Pre
Deprivation Process, 65 Ohio St. L. J. 913
dba Sisainisiranncneniatueticices dattmeaniadessns Seeitaudcs; sasdnces puedion 4

Child Maltreatment 2009, 94 (U.S. Department
of Health & Human Services), available on
line at the Children’s Bureau web site at
SNE oi ciccivenvebadcsscavinsecccesbswsesastesses 16

1x
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Donane L. Coleman, Storming the Castle to
Save the Children: The Tlronic Costs of a
Child Welfare’ Exception to the Fourth
Amendment, 47 Wm. & Mary LL. Rev. 413

I ee ea ee ee ard

Zuzana Murarova & Elizabeth Thornton, Med-
eral Funding for Child Welfare: What You
Should Know, 29(3) ABA Child Law Practice

Fe MND iaitidenivascdanebdscidiismessds peaednansbbdssodtsuainmenta

Vincent J. Palusei, Identifying and Reporting

Child Abuse and Neglect, 1003) Mich. Child

nS a CS... cd ccccesvesussinwasisansteuccensn

Miriam kollin, Frank Vandervort, Ann M.
Haralambie, /kederal Child Welfare Law and
Policy: Understanding the Federal Law and
Funding Process, in Child Welfare Law and
Practice (Marvin Ventrell & Donald N.
Duquette, eds., Bradford Publishing Co., Ist

UNG NE bio Scek ci sictaiimans isi shchacsaslabeabhaesusssctiectgrnabehdas Gemeduncedents

Marvin Ventrell, The History of Child Welfare
Law, in Child Welfare Law and Practice
(Marvin Ventrell & Donald N. lL uquette eds.,

a A oO et aut ereuenert

Hollida Wakefield, “Guidelines in Investigatory
Interviewing of Children: What is the Con
sensus in the Scientific Community?” 24(3)

Amer. J. Forensic Psychol. 57 (2006) ...0............

Page

2

eeeeeee ae

pooea 21

7, 20

INTEREST OF AMICUS'

The Children’s Law Section for the State Bar of
Michigan is comprised of 492 members. Unlike other
groups appearing as amici in this case, the Children’s
Law Section is comprised not only of attorneys who
represent parents, children, and the Department of
Human Services in child protective proceedings, but
membership also includes the juvenile judiciary. The
fact that our members play different roles and enter
at different stages of child protection cases provides a
unique vantage point for assessing the need for
consistent and reliable procedures at the investiga-
tive phase of child protection cases.

The impact ef a rule of Jaw governing how
interviews of suspected victims of child abuse are
conducted will be felt by all of our members who,
despite their different roles in the system, share an
interest in developing a legal landscape that offers
the best outcomes for children and their families
even if they are involved in a CPS investigation.
That interest compels the Children’s Law Section, as
amicus curiae, to highlight the importance of a rule
from this Court that would result in consistent,
humane, and lawful interviews of suspected victims

Counsel of record, Klizabeth Warner, and co-counsel Jods
Latuszek, authored this brief without compensation by the party
or anyone else. The Children’s Law Section of the State Bar of
Michigan paid for the preparation and submission of the brief
For consent to file the bref, counsel releed on the written
blanket consents provided by all the parties to all amici

2

of child abuse. Interviews with those core features are
interviews that will ultimately serve the best interest
of the children at the very heart of CPS investigations
because they produce results that can be used in
court to secure legal results that will protect’ them
from further abuse.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The protection of children from unsafe homes
and unfit caretakers is the task of public child wel-
fare agencies, the state civil juvenile courts, and
criminal law enforcement. Sadly, a child can be hurt
more than helped by state intervention. Some degree
of victimization of a child by the official response to a
report of abuse or neglect ts inherent in these cases.”
Harm can occur whether the abuse accusation is
true or not. Sometimes the juvenile justice system
separates a child from a safe parent for a variety of
reasons, including a flawed protective services in
vestigation. Without question, that is an intolerable
harm to a child’ For confirmed sexual abuse victims,

Domane lL. Coleman, Storming the Castle to Save the Chil
dren? The tronic Costs of a Child Welfare Exception to the Fourth
Amendment, 47 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 413, 540 (2005) (“The vio
lence that these official investigations do to the children can be
just as destructive as the private violence they seek to avert.”).

* Santosky vo Kramer, 455 US. 745, 760-761 (1982) (TT Ihe
child and the parents share a vital interest in preventing
erroneous termination of their natural relationship”); Stanley v
Illinois, 405 US. 645, G52 (1972) CUP he State registers no pain

(Continued on following page)

3

the failures of the legal systeia have “frequently
resulted in children being: victimized by the abuse
and then re-victimized by the judicial system through
misguided prosecutorial efforts.” True or not, mis-
treatment or manipulation of a child in an abuse
investigation should be not tolerated by any court,
especially when the investigators violate laws or the
Constitution. Simply put, the rule of law is the best
child protection.

If this court decides it has jurisdiction in Ques-
lion 2, the amicus supports affirming the Ninth
Circuit ruling on Question 1. Amicus supports con-
stitutional protection for the respondent child S.G_,
a mine year old special education student who was
seized, detained, and interviewed by CPS and police
investigators at her school, until she accused her
father of sexually abusing her. The lower court rule
works on a practical and legal level. The exigent
circumstances exception will allow officials to protect
a child from serious harm when time and immediate
danger do not allow the prior involvement of the
juvenile courts. The child interview requirement for
either parental consent, or a court order based on
probable cause, properly align the investigative phase
of a child) protective services case with both the

towards its declared poals when tt separates children from the
custody of fit parents.”)

* Tymothy L. Arcaro, Child Victums of Sexual Abuse and the
law, 1213) Mich. Child Welfare L.Jd. 2, 2 (2009)

4

Constitution and the welfare of a defenseless child.”
The petitioners advocate for essentially unsupervised
discretion for the child welfare workers. The peti-
tioners say a court interview order would burden
them and the court. But the juvemile judiciary is
capable of handling the necessary court orders, as it
does now routinely on other investigation tasks.

The constitutional rules for child protective ser-
vices (CPS) investigations should be considered with
an understanding of the civil juvenile legal system
that governs that investigation and the dependency
case that may follow.” A basic understanding of the

* Judicial review by the warrant process reduces harmful
mistakes for the child and her family. Mark Ro Brown, Rescuing
Children from Abusive Parents: The Constitutional Value of Pre
Deprivation Process, 65 Obio St. L. d. 918, 979 (2004) (Summary
rescues of children without warrants increases the volume of
court cases, but “translates into more mistakes, which mn turn
result in more children being needlessly placed in foster care.”)

* “Dependency court is that part of the yovemile court that
handles child maltreatment cases. A child who has been adjudi
cated maltreated or is under state custody ts often referred to as
a dependent child. Child maltreatment is the general term used
to describe all forms of child abuse and neglect that give rise to
dependency court jurisdiction.” Marvin Ventrell, The flistory of
Child Welfare Law, in Child Welfare Law and Practwe 113-114
(Marvin Ventrell & Donald N. Duquette eds, Ist ed) 2005)
“Dependency” is the most common name tor the child protection
case filed by a public child welfare agency tn a civil court. These
cases po by other names, like abuse and neglect, or child-in-
need-of-aid. ‘This brief refers to the civil court handling depend
ency cases as a “juvenile court,” but the cases may be in a pro
bate, family, surrogacy, or other specialized court. /d at 139
At one time criminal prosecution was the exclusive remedy for

(Continued on following page)

~

evidentiary requirements of dependency cases, and the
‘apabilities of the juvenile judiciary, is important to
assess some of the broad and unsupported arguments
of the petitioners. Because CPS workers appear much
more frequently than police officers in our civil court
system, the focus will be on them in this brief.

Part I identifies the federal laws relevant to these
investigations. Congressional findings and enactments
are the best sources for arguments based on child
welfare policy. The text and context of Congressional
enactments do not support the broad generalizations
and justifications attributed to them by the peti-
tioners and their amici.

Part Il discusses state laws on child interviews at
school and other locations. Reliance on the state laws
does not answer the constitutional question presented
in this case. Numerous state laws that are consistent
in permitting some interviewing practices do not
demonstrate that the petitioners’ tactics were constt-
tutionally reasonable in this instance. Those state
laws simply reflect federal funding requirements for
states to enact these laws. State statutes do not
define or obliterate constitutional rights. Many states
permit CPS investigators to interview children at
school. Very few of them extend that permission to a

Child abuse. Now the dependency court in the last half of the
20th Century has become an “active tribunal to determine
whether a child is abused or neglected, and if so, what disposi
tion is appropriate” for the child’s safety and welfare. Jd at 138

8)

police officer, like Deputy Alford. The petitioners’
judicial burden argument is weakened by the fact
that existing law already requires judges to rule on
requests for investigation or interview orders.

Part IIL explains the harm to the juvenile justice
system from an unregulated child interview like the
one that occurred in this case. This adverse impact on
the civil dependency case of flawed interviewing
practices is a relevant consideration if the Court
apphes the balancing test in /llinots v. Lidster as
proposed by the petitioners.’ All parties to a depend-
ency case benefit from a child interview that is hu-
mane, reliable, and lawful. Anything less leaves a
factual ambiguity that does not further the child
protection goals of the juvenile court.

Illinois vo Lidster, 540 US 419 (2004)

~]

ARGUMENT

I. FEDERAL LAW HAS SOME VALUE TO
ASSESSING THE POLICY ARGUMENTS
OF THE PARTIES AND THEIR AMICI.
CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND LAWS
PROVIDE AN EXPRESSION OF NATION-
AL CHILD WELFARE POLICY AND BEST
PRACTICES IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATIONS OF CHILD ABUSE
AND NEGLECT.

A. National Child Protection Policy Seeks
Protection Of Children And Their Fami-
lies In Child Abuse Investigations.

The petitioners cite federal laws for the proposi
tion that the investigation tactics used in this case
were lawful and appropriate. Yet, the citation ts
unavailing because Congress does not make much
substantive law in this area, and the petitioners are
appropriately not claiming that it has.” Their argu
ment apparently is that their acttons must be reason
able under the Fourth Amendment if Congress has
suggested their practices to the states. Therefore,

"“(Mlost provisions of these statutory schemes are not
intended to and do not establish substantive law that apphies to
individual cases.” Rather, a failure to adopt a federally compl
ant state plan can result in fines agaimst the state. Miriam
Rollin, Frank Vandervort, Ann M. Haralambie, Federal Child
Welfare Law and Policy: Understanding the Federal Law and
Funding Process, wi Child Welfare law and Practwe 151
(Marvin Ventrell & Donald No Duquette, eds , Bradford Publish
ing Co., Ist ed. 2005)

ra)

their actions must be reasonable for Fourth Amend
ment purposes because, in essence, they are tollowing
national child protection policy. For those federal law
based arguments, it is worthwhile to look at the text
of those laws on subjects that both sides have intro-
duced into this discussion. That would be on the
topics of child harm, non-offending parents, famuly
rights, and legal protectors for the child. This law
based analysis, devoid of policy rhetoric, reveals that
federal laws do not coincide as definitively with their
side as petitioners claim.

Congress has made findings, and enacted laws,
relevant to the investigative phase of a child welfare
case.” TWo stand out. One is the Child Abuse, Preven-
tion and Treatment Act of 1974 “CAPTA”). CAPTA
deals with mandatory reporting laws for child mal
treatment and the investigative response to those
reports. ‘The other one is the Victims of Child Abuse
Act of 1990 (““VOCA”)," which suggests best practices
for investigation of child abuse cases.

_

State law remains the primary source of legal rules for
many aspects of the child protection case. The procedural rules
of puvenile court proceedings are local. The adjudicative, or trial,
phase of the case ts governed primarily by state law State
leygishatures make the substantive Law for puvenile court purisdic
tion and the grounds to terminate parental rmyhts

* Pub. L. No 93-247 Wan. SL, 1974), BS Stat 4,42 USC
$§ 5101 to 5119¢ (2006), amended and reauthorized, Keepiny
Children and Famihes Sate Act of 2003, Pub L, No 108-36, 117
Stat. 795 (June 26, 2003)

Pub. L. No 101-647, tit. I], sub. tit A, 104 Stat 4792
(Nov 29, 1990), 42 US.C. §§ 13001 to 138004 (2006)

9

1. Congress Has Made A Finding That
An Incompetent Sexual Abuse In-
vestigation Can Harm Children And
The Legal System.

Conpress has found that the investigation of
Child abuse can harm children. One of the findings of
VOCA an 1990 was that “in such cases, often the
system does not pay sufflaaent attention to the needs
and welfare of the child victim, appgravating the trau
ma that the child vietim has already experienced.”
42US€ & 130014) (2006), Pub. L. No. 101-647, tit.
IH, sub tit A, & 211, 104 Stat. 4792 (Nov. 29. 1990)
In a 1992 amendment to CAPTA’s grant program,
Conpress singled out the special necd to limit’ addi-
Gional tragma caused by investigations in child sexual
abuse and exploitation cases. 42 USC. § 5306e(a)1)
(2006), Pub tL. No 102-95, 6 bag

The petitioners give mixed messapes on where
they stand on this truth that a sexual abuse imivests,
pation can harm a child) Camreta clearly endorses it.
Brief Camreta, IEC The povernment has a compelling
Interest on conducting child abuse sovestigations in a
manner that as least likely to be traumatic for the
child] |") Alford agrees that at least this child was
upsel from her unannounced encounter with the two
Of them dle admits Camreta was “posing difficult
questions of SG in what was likely a confusing and
uncomlortable situation ” Brief Alford 5%. He pives
an account of SGi’s lenpthy mterview by Camreta in
Which for the first hour she deemed any abuse. He

discloses, Camreta thereafter enyayved in persistent

10

questioning of SG. after she insisted that her father’s
touching “all over” was not “bad.” brief Alford, 59.
Twice in his bref Alford refers to the child as “a
frightened girl.” /d. On the other hand, earlier in his
boef he refers to their interview of S.G. as a “modest
measure” to ferret out child abuse, rd. 12, that the
interview in SG’s case “resulted in only a minimal
intrusion into her privacy interests.” Regardless of
where the parties stand, the Congressional finding
that a sexual abuse investigation is not harmless
should be suffiaent response to any petitioner sup

porter that denies or discounts it.

2. Federal Law Recognizes The Impor-
tance Of Enforcing The Civil Rights
Of The Family In A Child Abuse
Investiyation.

Congress has endorsed a more holistic and hu
mane national child welfare policy than the govern
ment mission onmentation of the petitioners. This ts
not a policy that sees this as a child allied with pov-
ernment on the one side and the parents on the other
side. ‘The very federal law petitioners cite most fre
quently, CAPTA, demands states protect the civil
nights of the entire family in a child maltreatment
mnveslivation and that investigators treat the child
well) Government actors who beheve children have
virtually no legal mphts, who ignore the parents, who
beheve legal restrictions are a dangerous nuisance,

and who mistreat a child in the initial mnterview, can

hardly argue they are following federal statutory

requirements.

Congress made a finding that this is our national!
child) welfare policy: “the child) protection system
should) be comprehensive, child-centered, family-
focused, and community based.” This is accomplished
in an environment that fosters “the health, safety,
self-respect, and dignity of the child.” 42 USC. § 5101
(note) (2006), Pub. L. No. 102-295, tit. I, § 102(a)7),
106 Stat. 1&8 (1992 CAPTA amendment). In another
CAPTA provision enacted in 2005 in the Keeping
Children and Families Safe Act,” Congress affirmed
that the child and family bave legal mghts worth
protecting in an abuse investigation. A state cannot
vel CAPTA funding for its child protective services
system unless it provides “training of representatives
of the child protective services system regarding the
legal duties of the representatives, which may consist
of various methods of informing such representatives
of such duties, in order to protect the legal nghts and
safety of children and families from the initial time
of contact during investigation through treatment.”
AZUSC. § 5106a0b 2 )Oxcix) (2006).

Petitioners would have to admit that Congress
contemplated and expressly recognized that a child
has “nyhts” during an abuse investigation when it

decided to require investigators like petitioners to be

~ “Safety” was added in a subsequent amendment

Pub i. No 108 36, § 1140b)01) A)Gdx), 117 Stat #10

12

trained and notified of the existence of those rights.
At a minimum these “legal rights” must include the
Bill of Rights. Despite the clarity in which Congress
articulated the notion that mghts are to be afforded to
the subjects of abuse investigations, petitioners are
extremely dismissive of the constitutional rights of
children, and ignore the rights of their parents
Iynoring the rights of children or Cheir parents during
abuse investigations is contrary to the national policy
expressed by Congress. "hey address only the child’s
Fourth Amendment right to privacy, which in their
view is virtually non-existent due to the child’s age.
Brief Alford, 50-53, Brnef Camreta, Bref 11, 30-31.
They make no mention of the child’s familial right to
have her family undisturbed by the government with-
out’ proof. While Camreta focuses on avoiding par-
ents, Alford is more intent on avoiding judges. Alford
pointedly claims that probable cause and warrants
just pet in the way of their government mission of
protecting children. Brief Alford, 46 (A) warrant
requirement would “frustrate the efforts of state
officials to act quickly to protect the safety of children
where abuse is suspected|.|”), 48 Cimposing a re-
quirement of probable cause would clearly frustrate
the needs of government|.|”). In Deputy Alford’s view,
a state’s adoption of the federal guideline for a rapid
response to an abuse report precludes court orders in
all cases. Brief Alford, 46, 62-63. But at least he its
willing to submit to a reasonable suspicion standard
for initiating a seizure of a child in order to interview
her Id, 47-48 Camreta, on the other hand, says he

is not constrained by any constitutionally based

Ms

standard. Ile invents a “reasonably credible evidence”
standard, which has no legal precedent. Brief Cam.
reta, 62-63. Although federal law recognizes that
children and their families have some rights to pro-
tect them during CPS investigations, Camreta argues
there are no legal restrictions on his work. Armed
with nothing but a report to CPS, “reasonably eredi-
ble evidence”), he can seize a child and interview
her just because he is investigating parental sexual
abuse allegations. Brief Camreta, 12, 13-14, 34. His
interpretation encompasses a per se approach to con-
stitutional standards for conducting interviews: that
his interviews with children are per se constitutional!
based on the subject matter alone. This proposition ts
a 180 degree turn from Congress’s repeated recogni-
tion of “rights” during interviews. Such a per se rule
opens the door to abusive tactics being used on those

who have already suffered abuse.

Despite petitioners’ arguments to the contrary,
actual analysis of congressional policy reveals the
legal positions and attitudes of the petitioners are not
the national child welfare policy established by Con-
press. Instead of disregarding constitutional protec
tions based on subject matter alone, national child
welfare policy actually contemplates protections and
safeguards by recognizing, the “rights” of parties to

child abuse investigations.

14

$3. Congress Recommends That The
Non-Offending Parent Be Included
In The Investigation.

In Camreta’s opinion the investigators can ignore
parents to pet access to their children because all
parents are presumed unfit or uncooperative. Brief
Camreta, 11 “Seeking parental consent is simply not
a safe or viable option.”); 41 (Seeking consent from
either parent could be detrimental to the child.”) By
contrast, Congress recommends incorporating the
non-ollending parent into the investigation process
because this helps the child and the justice system.

In the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990, 42
USC. §§ 13001 to 18004 (2006), the participation of
the non-offending parent, whois Mrs. Greene in this
case,’ as encouraged. This is based on a finding
by Congress that at the investigation stage “loo
often the system does not pay sufficient attention to
the needs and welfare of the child victim, agyravat-
ing the trauma that the child victim has already ex
permenced.” 42 U.S.C. § 13001(4) (2006). Another goal
was to “increase the successful prosecution of chitd
abuse offenders” by these child and family centered
best practices. VOCA established discretionary prants
for child advocacy centers, exclusively for physical and
sexual abuse cases, and staffed by multi disciplinary

“ “The term ‘non-offendimy fanuly member’ means a mem
ber of the family of a victim of child abuse other than a member
who has been convicted or accused of committing an act of child
abuse! |" 420 SC. § 138001a08)

Ih

teams. 42 USC. §§ 13001b, 18002. The initial inter-
view of the child can be conducted by well-trained
interviewers in a comfortable setting, 42 USC
§ 138002(bK 2) Counseling for abuse victims and
their families is part of the services. 42 USC
§ 14800 1b(e)(2).B)0C) ‘These centers must also
“provide support for non-offending family members.”
A2 USC. § 18001 b(ay(2), (b2 Cada).

B. The Child Has No Legal Protector
Besides A Parent Or A Judge During
The Investigative Phase. The Child’s
Right To Counsel Commences Later
With The Filing Of A Court Depend-
ency Case.

One shortcoming of federal law has implications
for evaluating the child’s legal protection in a mal
treatment investigation. Juveniles interviewed as
possible victims do not have the same right to counsel
that a juvenile suspect has. S.CG.’s only legal protec
tors al the investigation stage are a parent or a judge
The child does not pet a legal advocate until a de
pendency case is filed) In its original enactment
CAPTA required states to provide a guardian ad litem
(GAL) to the child in every child maltreatment court
case. Pub. L. No. 93-247 § 4(b) 2G). This GAL is not
even required to be an attorney. A later amendment
added that the guardian ad litem “may be an attorney
or a court appointed special advocate” (CASA). 42
USC. § 5106aib(2xAK xt) For unknown reasons,
states are not fully complying with even this minimal
representation by a person who may not be a legal

16

professional. Only about 16% of children get a court
appointed representative like an attorney, GAL, or
CASA volunteer” There is no system in place to
provide representation to the child at the investiga
tive phase of a child protection case in order to stop or
amehorate the trauma of an investigation before the
dependency court case is filed. Consequently, the
implementation of protections and safeguards during
the interview process is an essential component to an
effective interview

I. NO RESOLUTION ON THE CONSTITU-
TIONAL ISSUE CAN BE MADE BASED ON
A FEW STATE LAWS ON CHILD INTER-
VIEWS. THE INVESTIGATION LAWS
PROVE POLICE ARE USUALLY NOT
WELCOME AT SCHOOL. STATE JUDGES
ARE ALREADY OBLIGATED BY STATE
LAW AND FEDERAL COURTS TO DE-
CIDE REQUESTS FOR INVESTIGATION
ORDERS. THEREFORE, THE JUDICIAL
BURDEN OBJECTION FAILS.

This Court should not entertain the state law ex-
cuse in this case. A common defense by social workers
and police in § 1983 cases is to claim their actions
were authorized by state law. The lower federal
courts have not piven it any weight. koe, O'Donnell v.

Child Maltreatment 2009, 9A (US) Department of Hlealth
& tlauman Services), avathable on line at the Children’s Bureau
web site at www childwelfare poy Ooly 32 states reported on
this topic

L/

Brown, 335 & Supp. 2d 787, 801-802 (WD. Mich. 2004)
(“State statutes and regulations cannot be construed
to displace the protections of the Constitution — even
When the statute acts to protect the welfare of chil-
dren.”); Walsh vo Erie County Department of Job &
Family Services, 240 F. Supp. 2d 731, 751 (N.D. Ohio
2003) CLT he defendants contend that Ohio’s statuto
ry framework for learning about and investigating
allegations of child abuse and neglect superseded
their obligations under the Fourth Amendment

State statutes and regulations cannot displace
the protections of the United States Constitution.”)
Neither should this Court. Legislatures have “no af-
firmative power to authorize States to violate” consti
tutional guarantees. Saenz v. Roe, 526 US. 489, 508
(1999).

A. State Child Abuse Investigation Laws
Are Similar Due To Federal Funding
Incentives. They Are Not Independent
Policy Choices By States Supporting
A Reasonableness Claim.

Much in the same way as they use federal law
references, petitioners and their amici cite state CVS
investigation laws as authorizations for their chal
lenped investipation practices. It is true that prompt
and joint investigation obligations are part of many
state Jaws about investigation of child abuse and
neglect reports. Most states also authorze agency
investigators to interview a child at school about the
abuse report. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit properly

considered these laws as evidence of entanglement

1s

with criminal law enforcement, which triggers the
Fourth Amendment warrant and probable cause pro
cedures under Ferguson v. City of Charleston.” The
petitioners’ citations to many more police entangle
ment laws outside Oregon prove that this is a na
tionwide problem. Any other relevance of these laws
on other Fourth Amendment ts less clear.

Perhaps the petitioners are using these state
investigation laws to demonstrate the reasonableness
of their conduct. The implied constitutional relevance
is that this volume of substantially similar state laws
express independently considered policies that are
reasonable, and as such they render state actor con-
duct pursuant to them constitutional under a Fourth
Amendment reasonableness analysis. Actually, these
state investigation laws are all about money ~ federal
money. Under CAPTA, if the states tail to enact cer
tain federal mandates, they lose massive amounts of
federal funding for their child welfare programs. It
follows then that the state investigation laws resem,
ble each other because they came trom the same
source federal law. ‘The similarities shared by
numerous state interviewing statutes is not mere
coincidence or an expression of independent policy
statements by state legislatures. ‘Therefore, this Court
should not afford any deference or evidentiary value
to them.

Ferguson vo City of Charleston, 532 US 6¢ (2001)

1g

The federal funding impetus underlies the entire
child welfare system today. Until the enactment of
CAPTA in 1974, child welfare law was mostly left to
the states, like other types of family law. But sigmifi-
cant parts of the foster care and adoption systems
have become identical in most states — essentially
federalized — through a series of federal statutes
starting in 1980." Along the way, Congress has been
conducting hearings, making findings on the scope
and response to child maltreatment, ordering studies
of policies and practices, and making significant
policy shifts based on this research. So for over three
decades Congress has been the author and enforcer of
remarkably uniform child welfare policy and practic-
es for the states through its spending power. There
are basically two types of funding: large statewide

For example, there is the Adoption Assistance and Child
Welfare Act of L980, 42 USC. §$§ 670 to 676 (2006). This was the
law construed in Suter vo Artist MU, 508 US. 3847 (1992) After
Suter, Congress amended the statute substantially in the
Adoption and Sate Families Act of 1997 (APSA), Pub LL. No 105
8Y Other federal laws poverning foster children, adoptions, and
system improvements are

Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act of 2000, Pub
Ll. No. 106 134, 114 Stat. 1266 (Oct 17, 2000), 42 USC § 670
(2006),

Adoption Promotion Act of 2008, Pub Lo No LOS 145, 117
Stat 1879, 42 LI SC. § 673b (2006),

Fostering Connections to Success and Locreasing Adoptions
Act of 2008, Pub L. No 110 351, 1?2 Stat 3949 47 USC
§ 1305 (Supp 2009).

Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006, Pub
lL No 190 288, 120 Stat. 1285, 42 USC §$ 62bet seg (amending
Secial Security Act, tit IV, part B)

20

block grants for federally compliant states and small-
er discretionary grants for approved best practice
programs. If a state wants federal funds for CPS.
foster care, and adoptions, the state must replicate a
federal model for case processing.’” That is the same
process as what this Court found when it reviewed
the first major adoption law with this funding model
in Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347 (1992). Even before
the Adoption Act, Congress was successful in using
CAPTA tunds to create mandatory reporting laws in
all states with substantially similar provisions on
investigating reports.

The Court cannot infer reasonableness, and
therefore constitutionality, of the child’s interview at
school by citing state laws or administrative rules
authorizing the investigation choices of the petition-
ers. Most states now have substantially the same
practices because they have adopted the federal plan,
which can require passing laws on investigation of
child maltreatment reports.” The financial pay-offs to

For an excellent explanation of the incentivized federal
state funding model for child welfare practices, see Miriam
Rotlin, Frank Vandervort & Ann M Haralambie, Federal Child
Welfare Law and Polueys Understanding the Federal Law and
Funding Process, in Child Welfare Law and Practice 143-183
(Marvin Ventrell & Donald No Duquette, eds , Bradtord Publish
my Co, Ist ed 2005)

* “The funding incentives — hundreds of millions of dollars
annually for larger states — are sufficrent so that each state has
determined it is in its interest to take the money When a state
avails itself of the federal financial support, it must comply with
the requirements of the federal law” Jd at 144

21

write federal “suggestions” into state law are huge.
This means that loss or ineligibility for such pay-otts
can be a crippling financial blow to cach state’s child
welfare budget. “Every year, mlhons of federal, state
and local dollars are used to finance child welfare
services. In 2006, the cost for child welfare services
nationwide was at least $25.7 billion. Almost half
of that amount, $12.4 bilhon, was funded by the
federal government.” Zuzana Murarova & Elizabeth
Thornton, Federal Funding for Child Welfare: What
You Should Know, 2913) ABA Child Law Practice 33
(2010), available at www-echildlawyerpractice org. ‘To
fund foster care costs, a state that adopts the tederal
mandates can be reimbursed 50% to 83° of what it
spends. Id. at 33.

RB. State Laws Must Yield To The Consti-
tution.

The state investigation laws are irrelevant to the
resolution of the constitutional issues in thus case,
except as used by the lower court to establish crimua-
nal law enforcement purposes of the jyornt investiga
tion. State laws establishing abuse investigation
procedures must yield to the Constitution, even when
the law promotes child protective purposes The case
of Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 5383 U.S. 525 (2007)
illustrates this point. At issue was a state law re
stricting Cigarette advertising around schools. ‘The
Court agreed that the law advanced an important
public interest to curb underage smoking. Although
this harm to children “poses perhaps the single most

significant threat to public health in the United
States,” the Court held that the First Amendment
trumped this child-focused state law. /d. at 570. When
the federal courts set the minimum constitutional
standards in family matters “they are not diminished
by the fact the state may have specified its own
procedures that it may deem adequate for determin
ing the pre-conditions to adverse action.” Santosky ¢
Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 755 (1982); see Monroe vo Pape,
365 US. 167, 1838 (1960) (lt is no answer that the
State has a law which if enforced would give reliet.”)

C. Most Interview Laws Do Not Support
The Police Officer’s Presence At A
School Interview.

The amici does not advocate deciding this case on
state law or policy But if the Court considers that
authority, it does not favor Deputy Alford. Most states
have laws allowing representatives of the public child
welfare agency (the Department” or “CPS”) to inter
view a child at school about suspected maltreatment
Kar fewer state laws expressly allow a police invest
gator to do the same. Only seven states, including
Oregon, authorize a law enforcement officer to inter
View a suspected child abuse victim at a school Kan
Stat. Ann. § 38-226; Neb. Rew. Stat. § 258-713; NH
Rev. Stat. Ann. § 16%C 3s, IV (West 2002 & Supp
2010); N.M. Stat. Anm. 1978 § 32-4-4-3; Ore. Rev
Stat. § 419b/045.- SC. Code 1976, § 63-7-380

23

DD. The Juvenile Judiciary Will Not Be
Burdened By A Constitutional Obli-
gation To Rule On Requests For Inves-
tigation Orders. This Is Already Part
Of Their Duties.

The petitioners argue that a warrant require-
ment should not be adopted because tt places a bur-
den on the judiciary. That is a policy argument, not a
legal argument. Petitioners’ proposition equates to a
presumption that imposing additional safeguards is
always burdensome and is thus, improper. As this
Court explained in Stanley v. Illinois, “Procedure by
presumption is always cheaper and easier than
individualized determination.” Stanley v. Illinois, 405
U.S. 645, 655 (1972). When protections of children
and their families are at issue, it is clear that pre-
sumptions are disfavored. Further, the specific policy
debate asserted by petitioners ended when the Consti-
tution was adopted. The Fourth Amendment “reflects
a judgment by the American people that the benefits
of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the
costs.” United States v. Stevens, _— U.S. __, 1380
S.Ct. 1577, 1585 (2010); see District of Columbia v.
Hleller, 554 U.S. 570, 634 (2008) (“A constitutional
guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its
usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.”).

The juvenile judiciary will not be burdened by an
obligation to rule on requests for interview orders.
Keep in mind that in most cases the order would be
unnecessary due to exigency, parental consent, the
young age of the child, or sufficient other evidence.

24

In the few remaining cases where an order is re-
quired to secure a necessary child’s interview, like a
verbal child in a sexual abuse investigation, juvenile
judges can do their job and rule on order requests
from the agency or police. Many of them are already
doing that with no constitutional command. By
statutes in some states they are already tasked with
deciding investigation disputes by orders, before the
dependency case is filed in most instances.” At least
fourteen states allow the court to issue investigation
orders for agency access to the child.’ For the most

“ This is in addition to the routine rulings on protective
custody or removal orders. As documented in other respondent
amici briefs, eg. Brief of CPS Watch, state law and federa!
circuit’ decisions require these orders. In that process, the
juvenile judges are complying with the warrant and probable
cause requirements imposed by the lower court in this case.

“ Alabama: Ala. Code § 9.301(12) (2009) (best interest plus
refusal); #1. R. v. Alabama Dep't of Human Resources, 612 So.2d
477 (Ala. App. 1992) (probable cause read into statute).

Arkansas: Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-510(b) (2009) (no stan
dard)

Colorado: Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-308(3\b) (West 2005 &
Supp. 2010) (good cause).

Delaware: 16 Del. Code Ann. § 910(a)(13) (2003 & Supp
2010) (need plus parent unavailable).

Florida: Fla. Stat. Ann. § 39.301(12) (West 2010) (best
interest plus refusal).

Illinois: 825 I. Comp. Stat. 5/7.5 (West 2010) (best interest
plus refusal).

Iowa: lowa Code Ann. § 232.71B.5 (West 2010) (probable
cause)

(Continued on following page)

) 5

part, the investigation access orders in state laws are
issued with low to no legal standards, and far below
probable cause (refusal or report. only, best interest,
good cause, reasonable suspicion). Only four of these
statutes use the constitutional probable cause stand-
ard. But the probable cause standard is used in the
27 states where physical examination orders are
constitutionally mandated by federal appeal courts.~

Kentucky: Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 620/040(5\(a) (Lexis Nexis
2008) (probable cause plus refusal); 922 Ky Adm. Kegs.
13300320).

Loursiwana: La. Child Code 613(A) (2004) (reasonable
suspicion plus refusal).

Minnesota: Minn. Stat. § 626.556(10)(e)-(f) CWest 2011)
(refusal).

New Hampshire: N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 169-C:34(IV) (West
2002 & Supp 2010) (child safety)

New York: N-Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1034(2) (2009) (report plus
refusal)

North Carolina: N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-3038 (2003) (refusal)
(2009).

Utah: Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-106(1) (2003) (“investigative
subpoenas” with warrant standard).
“ 9d Circuit: Connecticut, New York, Vermont
Tennenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.2d 582, 585 (2d Cir.
1999).
3d Curcuit: Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania

Good v. Dauphin County Social Services for Children
& Youth, 891 F.2d 1087, 1093 (3d Cir. 1989).

5th Curcuit: Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas

Roe v. Texas Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Services,
299 F.2d 395, 407-08 (5th Cir, 2002).

7th Circuit: Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin

(Continued on following page)

26

There is no evidence that juvenile judges are uniquely
incapable of applying the probable cause standard to
investigation access orders, like the interview order
that should have been sought in the case before S.G.
was seized at school. Indeed, juvenile courts are
already handling orders on protective custody, re-
movals, physical exams in the majority of states, all
of which use the probable cause standard. They can
be the “neutral and detached magistrate” required by
the Fourth Amendment to referee a dispute between
the government and a child with constitutional
rights. Consequently, the suggestion that additional
safeguards impose an unworkable burden on the
juvenile judiciary is unavailing.

Darryl H. v. Coler, 801 F.2d 893 (7th Cir. 1986).

9th Circuit: Alaska, Arizona, California, Ldaho, Ha
watt, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington

Wallis ov. Spencer, 202 F.2d 1126, 1141 (9th Cir. 2000).
10th Circuit: Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New
Mexico, Utah, Wyoming

Dubbs v. Head Start, Inc., 335 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir.
2003)

There is one additional state, Alabama, where exami-
nation orders are required by state law, but on less
than probable cause. Ala. Code § 26-14-7(c) (“cause”
plus refusal)

27

Ht. ALL PARTICIPANTS IN THE CHILD WEL-
FARE SYSTEM BENEFIT FROM A COURT
DECISION THAT SUPPORTS A RELIABLE,
HUMANE, AND LAWFUL CHILD INTER-
VIEW ABOUT ABUSE. QUESTIONABLE
INTERVIEWING PRACTICES CREATE AM-
BIGUITY IN THE JUVENILE LEGAL SYS-
TEM THAT DOES NOT FURTHER ITS
CHILD PROTECTION MISSION.

The Lidster balancing test promoted by the
petitioners includes evaluation of the degree to which
the interview seizure advances the public interest.
Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419, 427 (2004). The
petitioners have correctly argued that child protection
in civil and criminal courts is an important and
constitutional public purpose. Prince v. Massachu-
sells, 321 US. 158 (1944). An individual juvenile
dependency case can be undermined when it lacks
sufficient reliable evidence to make good decisions for
a child’s welfare. Unprovable maltreatment is just as
damaging to the child as undetected maltreatment.”
But an unjustified accusation of an innocent parent
also harms the child. “In either case, the failure
to obtain competent and reliable evidence of child
sexual assault has a profound impact on the victim.”

“ The latter is the only harm touted by the petitioners
justifying their request for unregulated access to children. Their
argument falls short. Detection, without proof, will not save a
child. Only a civil or cruninal court can legally separate a child
from an unfit home or an unfit parent. To do that, the court
needs relrable evidence

28

Timothy L. Arcaro, Child Victims of Sexual Abuse and
the Law, 12(3) Mich. Child Welfare L.J. 2, 5 (2009).
Inappropriate child interviewing techniques “may
significantly impact certain aspects of the child’s
account,” which in turn affects “the reliability of the
statements” and “may seriously compromise subse-
quent legal proceedings.” /d.

The important public purpose of child protection
is served only by humane, reliable, and lawful inter-
views of suspected child abuse and neglect victims.”
This principle benefits all parties to the civil
dependency case. Truth seeking and reliability of the
juvenile court’s decisions are undermined by ques-
tionable child interviewing practices. Civil child
protection by state intervention is based on past
harm or future danger. Those determinations must
be based on evidence, not speculation or suspicion.
Clearly, there is an adverse impact on the fact-finding
process in a dependency case when the juvenile court
must contend with an unreliable and unrecorded
child statement. In this case the lack of reliability
was exacerbated where the interview involved a child
who did not report abuse before the interview and
where the allegation was secured in an ambush of a

“ It may be surprising to this Court, but in most dependen-
cy cases a child is not interviewed during the initial investiga-
tion. The child may be too young, traumatized, or uninformed.
Often the child’s input is not necessary because a parent admits
or there is other reliable and sufficient evidence to prove the
case, like adult witnesses who encounter an abusive or neplect-
ful situation

29

special education elementary student at school by two
strange men, one an armed uniformed police officer,
and the other one badgering the student until her
denials turned into accusations of “sexual abuse”
against her father.”

Even without the child’s later recantation,” the
abuse allegation would be difficult to sustain. With
the recantation, the juvenile court is left with am-
biguous and unknowable facts. The lack of a record-
ing of the interview presents an inexcusable and pre-
ventable credibility problem for the juvenile court. A
recording requirement is one best practice on which
all child forensic interview experts agree.”’ The only
witness to Camreta’s interrogation of S.G. was Dep-
uty Alford, a local colleague of the other police agency
in a small town that had arrested her father for
molesting another child. Alford admits he had a tape
recorder in his car, but he did not use it and he
took no notes. The failure of the two investigating
officers to record a child’s initial interview about
abuse “in a controlled situation and absent exigent
circumstances, will be viewed with distrust in the

” “Sexual abuse” is what the petitioners call it. It is difficult
to ascribe that label to an allegation of touching the genital area
through clothing by a sleeping father, in the absence of other
evidence showing sexual intent. Child Victims of Sexual Abuse
and the Law, supra at 3-4.

* See note 29 infra

Hollida Wakefield, “Guidelines in’ Investigatory Inter-
viewing of Children: What is the Consensus in the Scientific
Community?” 24(3) Amer. J. Forensic Psychol. 57 (2006)

30

judicial assessment of the veracity of the child vic-
tims’ statements.” State v. Weaver, 964 P. 2d 713, 723
(Mont. 1998). ‘This ambiguity and lack of reliability
can lead to over-protection of a safe child or under-
protection of a maltreated child, depending on which
direction the doubts lead a particular judge. The bot-
tom line is that all parties to a child welfare case are
better served by a ruling from this Court that sup-
ports reliable, humane, and lawful child interviews.

While the damage to the dependency case for an
unreliable child interview may not occur in all cases,
its correlation to the most serious cases magnifies the
harm from practices like those used on S.G. Although
most of the policy advocacy of the petitioners and
their amici is about child abuse, abuse cases are not
the bulk of the juvenile docket. Child abuse is by far
the smallest part of the dependency court case load.
Child neglect comprises at least 90% of the cases
reported to CPS, substantiated, and filed in court.
When the more infrequent sexual abuse case ts filed,
amicus agrees with petitioners that the child’s state-
ment may be the sole or primary basis for making all
the court decisions, including ordering a temporary to
permanent break-up of the child’s family.” The fact
that the child’s statement is essential in some of these
most serious cases is, by far, the most compelling

There is usually no medical evidence to corroborate or

rule out the sexual abuse, even if there was penetration. Vincent
J. Pahusci, Identifying and Reporting Child Abuse and Neglect,
1013) Mich. Child Welfare L.J. 17, 21-22 (2007).

31

reason for investigators to take care to get it right —
both factually and legally. Judicial involvement could
help, too, in order to provide parameters to improve
reliability of the important first child interview. For
example, these parameters might include securing a
skilled interviewer or conducting the interview in a
humane and comfortable setting for the child. It is
interesting that the petitioners want to cooperate with
each other in an investigation, but they are not in-
terested in cooperating with the juvenile court judge,
who is in the best position to help them get the truth.

The facts of this case reveal just how severely a
dependency case is impacted by faulty and unreliable
interviews of suspected child abuse victims. Petitioners’
investigative methods did not work for them in this
case. They were able to conduct this investigation
without the legal restrictions they oppose in this
Court. Yet all the harms they claim will happen if
the Fourth Amendment legal requirements are
strictly applied occurred anyway — child recantation,”

” The school interview of S.G. happened on February 24,
2003. The record is not clear on the exact date she first told her
mother that she had led about her father abusing her. It had to
have been sometime between February 24 and March 11, 2003,
before the two girls were put in foster care, because little sister
K.G. overheard her sister confessing to their mother that she
lied to Camreta. Greene v. Camreta, 2006 WL 75847 *2 (D. Ore.
Mar. 23, 2006). When K.G. was interviewed at the assessment
center on March 20, she reported the recant conversation.
When S.G. came to the center on March 31, she also told the
“lady” who did the physical exam that her father had not abused
her. Greene v. Camreta, 588 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 2009)-

(Continued on following page)

32

ambiguous and inadequate evidence, “burdening” the
juvenile court with more hearings and orders, loss of
dependency court protection, and an unsuccessful
prosecution. By using parental consent or a court
interview order to create optimal conditions for the
child, the parent or the dependency court judge could
have given the state and the child’s family the best
chance for getting to the truth. Instead, this flawed
CPS and police investigation left the juvenile court
with so much ambiguity that it had to release S.G.
and her sister from protective custody and dismiss
the case. When the criminal case against the father
about molesting S.G. went to trial, it resulted in no
conviction on the charges about S.G.”

An interview where a child is badgered into
accusing a parent of abuse, and then immediately
recants, yields unreliable evidence. Such evidence does
not support the important child protection decisions

Depos. S.G. 137-139 at Dist. Ct. Doc. 53, Ex. C. So the record
shows that S.G. did not recant in order to go home, as the
assessment center surmised. Camreta v Green, at 1019-20
(quoting KIDS Center report: “{Tjhere appears to be a high
likelihood that S.G. may have recanted her statements about
her father touching her privates in an attempt to expedite her
return home.”). She was still living at home when she denied the
abuse the first time.

” Two weeks after S.G.’s school interview, the grand jury
indicted her father on multiple counts of felony sexual abuse
against her and FS., the five-year-old son of a family fnend.
Greene v. Camreta, 2006 WL, 758547 *2 (D. Ore. Mar. 23, 2006).
The jury could not reach a verdict. The case was plea bargained
for a conviction on the boy, and a dismissal on his daughter.
Greene v. Camreta, 588 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2009).

33

of the juvenile court. It could result in a “hung” judge,
just like the hung jury in Mr. Greene’s criminal trial.
Where the ultimate safety of a child hangs in the
balance, it is of utmost importance to the child protec-
tion bench and bar that interviewing practices and
procedures yield reliable results that aid in securing
the best possible outcomes of protection and perma-
nency for all children.

CONCLUSION

The attorneys who represent, advocate, negoti-
ate, and fight their way through child protection
cases all share this knowledge: good intentions do not
always render good results. Normally, such a proposi-
tion is of little consequence but, in the context of
protecting children from the ravages of child abuse,
bad results could mean physical and emotional trau-
ma, continued abuse, and sadly, even death of a child.
In that regard, professionals who work on child
welfare cases need the best tools possible, along with
good intentions, if they are to achieve good results.

This case presents frightening components that
could cripple the probability of good results (protect-
ing children), including the suggestion that procedur-
al safeguards are not necessary for protection of a
child or the child’s family during an interview of a
suspected abuse victim so long as the subject mat-
ter alone shocks the conscience of the investigator.
Yet, free reign and unchecked authority of investiga-
tors failed in this case because those tactics yielded

34

unreliable results. Consequently, if free reign is the
rule, it will fail again.

National policy on child welfare and current
practices reveal that the best results, protection of
children, are obtained when child interviews are
humane, reliable, and lawful. That involves imple-
menting safeguards before and during a child inter-
view. Safeguards are not additional burdens to the
judiciary, they are additional tools for the child wel-
fare bench and bar. The Children’s Law Section of the
State Bar of Michigan would ask this Court to consid-
er that the burden of prosecuting, defending, and pre-
siding over cases where critical evidence is obtained
through unreliable means is far greater in scope and
complexity than the burden of implementing addi-
tional safeguards that are more likely to result in
reliable evidence. Ultimately, we all share the good
intentions of protecting children with varying ideas of
how to exercise that intent. In the end the child
welfare law, policy, data, and current practice reveal
that the best way to do so is to exercise that intent
while recognizing the rights of children and their
families during the investigative phase of child wel-
fare cases.

Respectfully submitted,

ELIZABETH S. WARNER* Jovi M. LATUSZEK

2464 Spring Arbor Kd. SPEAKER LAW FikM PLLC
Jackson, MI 49203 230 N. Sycamore St.
(517) 787-3560 Lansing, MI 48933
eswarner@aol.com (517) 482-8936

*Counsel of Record jlatuszek@speakerlaw.com

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385015_0596%3A20. Public record. Not legal advice.