March 03, 2010

But quick! Let's have the government be in control of everything!

I think this story is the best summary ever of why I'm on the libertarian side of things.

A couple in California cannot get their names off the list of child abusers even though they've been found factually innocent. 

It appears that California, For The Children, created a system where anyone accused of abuse, note that's accused, not convicted, is listed on a state list as a child abuser.  What the state didn't do is establish any way to get off the list if/when the accusations are found false.  Kafka would be proud.

The article doesn't being to approach the reality of how bad this is.  The Ninth Circuit, in a rare display of competence, found that the parents' civil rights were violated, found that the county can be liable for damages (shocker, apparently cert. just got granted on that)* and ordered that the state change the system. 

I tracked down the Ninth Circuit's opinion and here's how it starts:

Appellants Craig and Wendy Humphries are living every parent's nightmare. Accused of abuse by a rebellious child, they were arrested, and had their other children taken away from them. When a doctor confirmed that the abuse charges could not be true, the state dismissed the criminal case against them. The Humphries then petitioned the criminal court, which found them “factually innocent” of the charges for which they had been arrested, and ordered the arrest records sealed and destroyed. Similarly, the juvenile court dismissed all counts of the dependency petition as “not true.”

Notwithstanding the findings of two California courts that the Humphries were “factually innocent” and the charges “not true,” the Humphries were identified as “substantiated” child abusers and placed on California's Child Abuse Central Index (“the CACI”), a database of known or suspected child abusers. As the Humphries quickly learned, California offers no procedure to remove their listing on the database as suspected child abusers, and thus no opportunity to clear their names. More importantly, California makes the CACI database available to a broad array of government agencies, employers, and law enforcement entities and even requires some public and private groups to consult the database before making hiring, licensing, and custody decisions.

This is incredibly strong language for any court to use, let alone a federal circuit court.  Also a finding of "factually innocent" is profoundly difficult to obtain.  This isn't a case where there's some question.  They.  Didn't.  Do.  It.

Every court involved says they didn't do it.  All the charges were dropped.  They were found innocent.  The Ninth Circuit ordered the state to get their names off that list.  To date?  No changes.  Their names are still on there.  And there's absolutely no one who seems able to just freaking go into the computer and take their names off.  It is completely and totally insane that their names are still out there.  But there you have it.

Welcome to the power of the government.  These are people who did the right thing.  They were falsely accused.  They went through the system and were found innocent.  They went back to court to clear their names.  The court told the state to clear their names.  But yet, there their names remain. 

I cannot think of a greater illustration of the dangers of government.  The state set up a system that puts names on without an process for getting names off.  The courts can tell the state what to do but if the state doesn't do it, well, that's that. The Court made a ruling.  Now enforce it. 

This is a perfect illustration of government out of control.  These people did nothing wrong.  But they're On The List and can't get off, no matter what.  It's this type of sheer utter brutality that makes normal people become enraged. 

*I'll admit, I'm fascinated to find out what will happen with the county being open to liability. The county's position is that there's no discretion about adding the names to the list and so it can't be liable.  It's an interesting legal dilemma, who is liable when a local entity is obeying a state mandate.

Posted by: alexthechick at 01:21 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 694 words, total size 5 kb.

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
16kb generated in CPU 0.0442, elapsed 0.1111 seconds.
61 queries taking 0.1046 seconds, 133 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.