| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dan Sullivan
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:13 am Post subject: pangborn's elaborates on the "core findings" of Santosky, wh |
 |
|
Last December grag asked me "Have you considered attacking Ken on the
issues?"
And pangborn responded with
"Well he HAS and he's been wrong. He's like Wills, reads PARTS of
things, doesn't understand them, and will defend his error to his
grave. He still doesn't get the core finding of Santosky v. Kramer.
That is that parental rights with respect to their children are a
"FUNDAMENTAL" Constitutionally protected RIGHT, that a "LIBERTY
INTEREST" exists. Thus limiting what CPS assholes like Ron and Dan
have the authority to do in screwing over families. In the VERY
LIMITED mind of the social worker, a Supreme Court decision is static
and ONLY applies to the fact base of the case. (In Santosky a
termination proceeding.) Somebody with the EXTREMELY limited intellect
of Sullivan would never THINK to obtain the oral argumentation with
the comments of the court so as to understand the ruling. And Sullivan
has ZERO knowledge of Shepherd's digest. The decision needs to be
understood in its total context." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dan Sullivan
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:53 am Post subject: Re: pangborn elaborates on the "core findings" of Santosky, |
|
|
On Jul 17, 11:13 pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Last December grag asked me "Have you considered attacking Ken on the
issues?"
And pangborn responded with
"Well he HAS and he's been wrong. He's like Wills, reads PARTS of
things, doesn't understand them, and will defend his error to his
grave. He still doesn't get the core finding of Santosky v. Kramer.
That is that parental rights with respect to their children are a
"FUNDAMENTAL" Constitutionally protected RIGHT, that a "LIBERTY
INTEREST" exists.
|
Correct.
EXISTS!
As in "The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care
custody, and management of their child is protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment..."
Notice the decision reads "the word "is protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment..."
| Quote: |
Thus limiting what CPS assholes like Ron and Dan
have the authority to do in screwing over families.
|
First, Ron and I in no way screw over families.
Second, the liberty interests of natural parents were the same before
and after the Santosky decision, with the exception of the standard of
evidence in termination proceedings in a few states.
| Quote: |
In the VERY
LIMITED mind of the social worker, a Supreme Court decision is static
and ONLY applies to the fact base of the case. (In Santosky a
termination proceeding.) Somebody with the EXTREMELY limited intellect
of Sullivan would never THINK to obtain the oral argumentation with
the comments of the court so as to understand the ruling. And Sullivan
has ZERO knowledge of Shepherd's digest. The decision needs to be
understood in its total context."
|
http://law.jrank.org/pages/13214/Santosky-v-Kramer.html
================
The Court's decision regarding parental rights was that they may only
be terminated by showing "clear and convincing" evidence. This changed
the standard, which was, in some states "fair preponderance."
The right to raise one's own children was at stake in the landmark
case Santosky v. Kramer. In 1982 this case caught the attention of
parents, especially in the state of New York. In 1973 Commissioner
Kramer of the Ulster County Department of Social Services had three
children removed from the Santosky home. Kramer insisted that if the
children remained in the home they would be subjected to parental
neglect. John and Annie Santosky challenged this decision in New York
Family Court. Their challenge's premise was that New York state's
process of deciding whether or not children should be permanently
removed from the care of their parents was unconstitutional. At that
time, the state of New York was in the minority of states that
required only a "fair preponderance of the evidence" as the standard
to support parental neglect.
A majority of states did not use the "fair preponderance of the
evidence" standard. They used the "clear and convincing evidence"
standard. What this means is most states, in deciding what was a fair
procedure to define permanent parental neglect believed that a
stricter process should be used since dissolving a family was a
serious issue. The Santoskys said that New York's standard of "fair
preponderance of the evidence" violated their rights to due process
under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Both the New York Family Court and the Appellate Division of the New
York Supreme Court decided the current standard, "fair preponderance
of the evidence"was valid and they upheld Commissioner Kramer's
decision to permanently deny custody to the Santoskys. However, after
the New York Court of Appeals wouldnot hear the Santosky's appeal, the
U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, overturned the lower court
rulings.
According to the New York Times, Justice Blackmun said "before a State
may sever completely and irrevocably the rights of parents in their
naturalchild, due process requires that the State support its
allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence." Justices
Marshall, Brennan, Powell and Stevens agreed with Blackmun, but
Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor, White and Chief Justice Burger
dissented.
The dissenters said that the five justices who voted to overturn the
lower court rulings did not focus on what they thought to be the
correct thing--the protection of the children. In the same New York
Times article JusticeRehnquist was quoted as saying this about the
case: "When the interests of the child and the State in a stable,
nurturing homelife are balanced against the interests of the parents
in the rearing of the child, it cannot be said that either set of
interests is so clearly paramount as to require that the riskof error
be allocated to one side or the other." Justice Rehnquist made
theargument that New York state spent over $15,000 to try and
rehabilitate the Santoskys. This did not work, so the state then
decided to press for permanent removal of their parental rights.
Also making statements during the Supreme Court hearings were Mr. and
Mrs. John Balogh. The Baloghs were the foster parents of one of the
Santosky children beginning five days after the child was born in
1974. According to the New York Times article, the Baloghs said that
raising the standard of proof in custody cases "will only serve to
increase the risk that neglected children will remain in the limbo of
foster care."
Although Justice Blackmun and the majority of the justices on the
Supreme Court voted in this case to upgrade the standard of proof in
parental custody cases, they did not make any statements regarding the
merits of the Santoskys.In other words, even though they voted to
change the standard of proof, the courts were allowed to proceed but
they had to meet the new standards if they were to permanently remove
custody from the Santoskys.
Santosky v. Kramer, therefore, erased the less strict standard used by
some states regarding parental custody rights--"preponderance of the
evidence"--and imposed a new, more stringent standard--"clear and
convincing evidence." The U.S. Supreme Court did this because the
majority of justices felt the existing standard was not sufficient in
protecting parents' rights to the care, management, and custody of
their own children.
=========== |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
146 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
