Procedural right to Due Process–parents rights under state kidnap

The right to procedural due process is implicated where a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest is concerned. Board of Regents of St. Colleges v. Roth, 408 US 564 (1972). The crux of procedural due process is the right to notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 US 67 (1972).

The US Supreme Court has repeatedly held that parents have a fundamental right to make decisions as to the companionship, care, custody and management of their children, which right is a protected liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. Troxel v. Granville, 530 US 57, 65-66 (2000). As a result, there can be no doubt that the Fourteenth amendment is implicated whenever the government seeks to separate a parent from his or her child, and due process principles generally require the right to notice and a hearing before children are separated from their parents. Hollingsworth v. Hill, 110 F.3d 733, 739 (10th Cir. 1997). The separation does not have to be carried out with force for due process to be implicated; instead, duress or coercion will be sufficient, such as where a social services worker threatens to place the children in foster care if the children are not “voluntarily” placed outside of the home with family or friends. Croft v. Westmoreland County Children & Youth Services, 103 F.3d 1123, 1125 (3rd. Cir. 1997); Dupuy v. Samuels, 462 F.Supp.2d 859 (ND.Ill. 2005), aff’d, 465 F.3d 757 (7th Cir. 2006).

However, where there is reasonable suspicion to believe that a child is in “imminent danger” of serious harm, a pre-deprivation hearing is not required. Hollingsworth, 110 F.3d at 739. In such a case, several courts have determined that a post deprivation hearing must be afforded within 72 hours, even if such a hearing has not been requested by the family. Patterson v. Armstrong County Children and Youth Services, 141 F.Supp.2d 512, 531-39. (WD Pa. 2001). Some courts have permitted slightly longer or required slightly shorter periods depending on the circumstances. Berman v. Young, 291 F.3D 976, 985 (7th Cir. 2002) (concluding that 72 day delay was “rather outrageous” but finding no damages), Jordan v. Jackson, 15 F.3d 333, 351 (4th Circ. 1994)( concluding that 75 hour delay was constitutionally permissible but was “near, if not at, the outer limit of permissible delay between a child’s removal from his home and judicial review. A delay of this length, absent extraordinary circumstances, for example, cf. County of Riverside, 500 U.S. at —-, 111 S.Ct. at 1670 (“bonafide emergency or other extraordinary circumstance” must be shown to justify delay greater than 48 hours), most certainly would be difficult to justify under either the statute or the Constitution (if it could be justified at all) where a removal is effected other than during, or shortly prior to, a weekend, as the Commonwealth has recognized through its statutory scheme. We are not prepared to say, however, that a delay of this length over an ordinary weekend is so offensive to principles of fairness as to require its invalidation under the Constitution.
The state’s removal of a child from his parents indisputably constitutes an interference with a liberty interest of the parents and thus triggers the procedural protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. There are few rights more fundamental in and to our society than those of parents to retain custody over and care for their children, and to rear their children as they deem appropriate. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1394, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 98 S.Ct. 549, 554-55, 54 L.Ed.2d 511 (1978); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 1212, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166, 64 S.Ct. 438, 442, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35, 45 S.Ct. 571, 573-74, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625, 626, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923); see also Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 386, 98 S.Ct. 673, 681, 54 L.Ed.2d 618 (1978). To say that “the
institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 1938, 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977) (plurality), as the Supreme Court often has said, see e.g., Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 123-24, 109 S.Ct. 2333, 2341-42, 105 L.Ed.2d 91 (1989) Page 343 (plurality); Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816, 845, 97 S.Ct. 2094, 2110, 53 L.Ed.2d 14 (1977), borders on understatement. The unitary family is the foundation of
society. Through the intimate relationships of the family, our children are nurtured, tutored in the values and beliefs of our society, and prepared for life. See Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 602, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 2504, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979) (“[P]arents generally ‘have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare [their children] for additional obligations.’ “) (quoting Pierce, 268 U.S. at 535, 45 S.Ct. at 573). Through these relationships,
our children–indeed, we, as parents–are strengthened, fulfilled and sustained. The bonds between parent and child are, in a word, sacrosanct, and the relationship between parent and child inviolable except for the most compelling reasons. Where the state seeks to interfere with these “essential,” Meyer, 262 U.S. at 399, 43 S.Ct. at 626, or “fundamental,” Santosky, 455 U.S. at 753, 102 S.Ct. at 1394, parental rights, its action must satisfy the procedural strictures of the Due Process Clause. Cf. id.; Lassiter v.
Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981). Due process, however, does not always require prior process. See FDIC v. Mallen, 486 U.S. 230, 240, 108 S.Ct. 1780, 1787, 100 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988) (“An important government interest, accompanied by a substantial assurance that the deprivation is not baseless or unwarranted, may in limited cases demanding prompt action justify postponing the opportunity to be heard until after the initial deprivation.”); see also United States v. James Daniel Real Property, — U.S. –
—, —-, 114 S.Ct. 492, 501, 126 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993) (hearing may be postponed until after the event in extraordinary situations) (citing Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 82, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 1995, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972)). And, as appellants concede, it is well-settled that the requirements of process may be delayed where emergency action is necessary to avert imminent harm to a child, see Weller v. Dep’t of Social Services, 901 F.2d 387, 393 (4th Cir.1990); Doe v. Hennepin County, 858 F.2d 1325, 1329 (8th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490
U.S. 1108, 109 S.Ct. 3161, 104 L.Ed.2d 1023 (1989); Donald v. Polk County, 836 F.2d 376, 380-81 (7th Cir.1988); Hooks v. Hooks, 771 F.2d 935, 942 (6th Cir.1985); Duchesne v. Sugarman, 566 F.2d 817, 826 (2d Cir.1977), provided that adequate post-deprivation process to ratify the emergency action is promptly accorded. See Weller, 901 F.2d at 396; Hennepin County, 858 F.2d at 1329.