Juvenile delinquency and PINS (persons in need of supervision) proceedings in New York provide to the child constitutional protections, such as a right to remain silent throughout the proceedings.
Child neglect proceedings are not brought against the child, but against parents for lack of supervision of the child, and thus, do not provide to the child a right to remain silent. Instead, in child protective proceedings the child does not usually testify and instead social services workers usually testify claiming, under the statutory "child hearsay exception", that the child allegedly made "statements" to social services, whether it happened or not, because it is unverifiable and such interviews between social services and the child are not usually audiotaped or videotaped in New York.
I have noted that social services in the state of New York started to bring child protective proceedings against the parents when they insist on their child's right to remain silent in interrogations by social services and police which can likely result in PINS and juvenile delinquency proceedings.
By bringing child neglect proceedings against the parents instead of juvenile or PINS proceedings against the child, CPS gets to remove the child based on hearsay evidence (rumors), place the child in CPS' own custody and interrogate the child at their heart's desire based on their own consent as the legal custodian of the child, thus obviating the child's right to remain silent under PINS and juvenile delinquency.
Even if the child is not removed and remains in parents' custody, CPS creates a conflict of interest for the parents to protect their child's interests on the child's behalf, because in child neglect/abuse proceedings parents' interests are adverse to the child's.
Yet, since in child protective proceedings against parents the child's right to remain silent is not a concern, assigned attorneys for the child who often depend on such assignments on a continuous basis and, thus, may consider it a better strategy, for personal reasons, to allow CPS unlimited access to the child for any reason or purpose. CPS, in its turn, may allow access to the child by police and other law enforcement authorities, and may commence PINS or juvenile proceedings against the child afterwards, claiming that they have gained access to the child and interviewed the child on consent of the child's counsel.
In New York, parents have no standing to address malpractice or conflict of interest and disqualification of the attorney for the child. The child him/herself is incompetent to do that. New York did not designate a body or person who would be able to do that on behalf of the child.
Thus, the child is without proper defense and without recourse when social services choose to file a child protective petition while meaning all along to target the child in the nature of a PINS or juvenile delinquency proceeding.
I believe that such a practice of social services to file a child protective proceeding against the parent where what social services and the law enforcement are seeking is self-incriminating statements from the child, which would have been protected in PINS and juvenile delinquency proceeding by a statutory and constitutional right of the child to remain silent, is unconstitutional.
By this post I alert the public as to such a practice and potential for abuse of power for the CPS against children.
Since child neglect proceedings are secret, records of such proceedings are not open to the public and majority of child neglect adjudications (court orders) are not appealed, and thus are not reflected in case law on public archives of appellate courts, I am not sure how wide-spread this policy is, yet, I know about a case where such a tactic was used.
I believe that the public should be aware of this particular tactic used by CPS to obviate the child's right to remain silent in investigations in the nature of pre-PINS and juvenile delinquency proceedings.
No comments:
Post a Comment