Earth to Mark Kirk: Federal Anti-Gang Task Force is Not the Answer

October 3, 2009


Congressman Mark Kirk
Mark Kirk for Senate
PO Box 8
Winnetka, Illinois 60093



Dear Congressman Kirk,

In response to the announcement of your proposal concerning a federal anti-gang task force, I would like to offer the following suggestions for you to consider as part of future policy proposals.

Specifically, that the problem of gang involvement evolves from the government's long-term assault on parents. No amount of expansion of authoritarian law enforcement posturing will ever help to substantively deal with these issues, or the decline of parental involvement and autonomy, until we adopt a new national policy toward parents, and create disincentives to divorce and out-of-wedlock child births, which often marginalize their standing in the community.


Specific points that are ripe for policy revision:

1). A public policy toward parents - Support of HJR 42, the Parental Rights Amendment, by Pete Hoekstra, would be a good place to start for all concerned pro-family lawmakers.

2). Child Support - Economically irrational child support models, based on a percentage of net income of the non-residential parent, has played a central role in driving many poor fathers away from their children, and a growth in the social welfare state.

This problem could be easily remedied with a national child support policy that is based on a cost-based child support model that would remove the primary incentive to out-of-wedlock child births, reducing or eliminating the financial windfall associated with such policies.

3). School Choice - Incentivize the growth of private and charter schools with matching federal funds in order to create a viable form of competition for public schools.

4). Domestic Violence - The ever-expanding definitions of "domestic violence" that have been promoted by then-Senator Joe Biden and the "Violence Against Women Act" (VAWA) have become another tool to destroy parent-child bonds, pushing more parents to make knowingly false allegations of abuse and tying up more taxpayer dollars in our courts and law enforcement, while distracting from the state's ability to investigate actual cases of abuse. This issue alone should speak for itself.

We need responsible legislation that will revise VAWA to be gender-neutral, and take funding away from politically-driven feminist groups that are masquerading as social service agencies, and modify it to deal with issues that concern abuse where free will has been marginalized.

We need to end the scenario that breeds lack of empathy for (and in) children, by specifically targeting the perceived advantage for single women from using them as pawns in order to support a morally twisted lifestyle preference, or using VAWA inspired laws to quickly terminate a relationship or marriage absent a finding of harm.

In short: "Lack of empathy breeds lack of empathy," and that is exactly what we're dealing with concerning Chicago gangs, and other issues concerning juvenile delinquency. Law enforcement will never fix that. We have to fix it by reframing the issue to center on the state's role in supporting parents, not supplanting or marginalizing their role.

If you agree as I do that it is time to effectively deal with these root-cause issues, I would welcome the opportunity to meet with you in person or by phone to discuss them in more detail.

If you have questions or would like to arrange a meeting, reply to me here or contact me directly at xxx.xxx.xxxx.


Thank you for your time and consideration.



Michael Burns
President/Co-founder
Illinois Alliance for Parents and Children
PO Box 10236
Chicago, Illinois 60610

Boxer Pushes U.N. Treaty to Supplant Parental Autonomy

"Best Interests" Evidentiary Standard Now Applied in Divorce and Child Custody Determinations would be broadened to all American parents.


(CHICAGO) -- California Senator Barbara Boxer wants Big Brother to be the father of your children. Or so it would seem, given her remarks at a recent Senate confirmation hearing for UN Ambassador-designate Susan Rice held on January 15, 2009.

Boxer alleged that passage of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), would protect "the most vulnerable people of society," under the context of the "Best Interests of the Child" evidentiary standard, which is now utilized only in Juvenile and Domestic Relations cases.

Parental rights advocates say it is the kiss of death for American parents.

"Application of the Best Interests standard is part of what has proven to be so egregiously harmful to parent-child bonds within the context of divorce and child custody determinations, and is the primary catalyst for enabling the courts to over-step their bounds when it comes to making harmful and long-lasting determinations, even when the state lacks a compelling interest to do so," says Michael Burns, President and Co-founder of the Illinois Alliance for Parents and Children, a non-partisan public interest group located in Chicago.

"Support for UNCRC demonstrates a long-standing desire of social service agencies and the feminist movement to marginalize parental involvement and autonomy in the name of protecting their best interests, which flies in the face of more than 60 years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent," says Burns, who has advocated against use of the Best Interests standard for cases that do not contain actual findings of harm or neglect.

Opponents such as Burns say passage of UNCRC could destroy parental autonomy and state sovereignty by imposing Marxist doctrine into American law within the first 6 months of the Obama Presidency.

"Ratified UN treaties preempt state law under the Supremacy Clause. With most of our existing statutes concerning parental rights held under state law, this new initiative would neutralize nearly all existing American family law. Moreover, it would grant the government even more latitude to override parental autonomy and decision-making by applying an unsound standard now used against those convicted of parental neglect or child abuse,” says Burns.

Boxer says she wants a 60-day time-frame for the State Department to complete its review in order to allow the Senate to move toward ratification of the UNCRC, and will ask Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for U.S. support.

“This is a sordid ambition of Boxer and anyone else that supports it to virtually re-classify good parents as potential criminals, and would enable public schools and state agencies such as DCFS to intervene in parent-child relationships under the pre-text of protecting their "best interests." In other words, the sky’s the limit on what the state can do with your kids if this treaty is ratified by Congress, even if the parents have done nothing wrong,” says Burns, who promises a legal challenge to the measure if it is ratified.

Referring to it as a "complicated treaty," Rice expressed her commitment to the objectives of UNCRC, but stated that she could not meet the Senator's strict timeframe. Rice promised to review the treaty, but noted "challenges of domestic implementation," in her confirmation hearing. She also resisted a strict timeframe: "I don't have a sense of how long it will take us, in light of the many different things on our plate," she said.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Burns is the President and Co-founder of the Illinois Alliance for Parents and Children, located in Chicago, Illinois. He can be reached at info(at)illinoisparentsandchildren(dot)org

Advocacy group says attempts to revise divorce and child custody statutes by trial lawyers are misguided and ill-conceived

Patronage, partisan interests, bar associations and feminist groups to blame for agenda-driven policies, outdated statutes that drive couples into bankruptcy and harm parent-child bonds


(PRWEB via PRWebDirect) February 3, 2009 - Illinois’ principle advocacy organization tasked with promoting broad-based legal reforms to existing divorce and child custody statutes calls the newly formed Family Law Study Committee a sham.

The Illinois Alliance for Parents and Children, a non-partisan public interest group located in Chicago issued a blistering letter last week to House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) and House Judiciary Chair John Fritchey (D-Chicago) that laid-out plans for a federal civil rights challenge against the state for its long-standing support of discriminatory divorce and child custody statutes, and criticized the committee’s performance at public hearings for lack of transparency and public input.

In a statement made to local media outlets, IAPC President Michael Burns cited widespread support to revise Illinois’ divorce and child custody statutes to keep pace with the changing needs of society, but cited the dominant participation of divorce attorneys as the reason why the latest round of reform efforts will likely fail.

“The fact that this committee has not been well-publicized, is being dominated by trial lawyers, that testimony for the hearings is by invitation-only and not subject to review or open to public comment tells us that true reform of existing statutes is being stifled and manipulated, and that these efforts are not sincere,” said Burns, who has actively lobbied for changes to Juvenile and Domestic Relations statutes for more than 5 years.

“Of particular concern is the number of speakers who evolve from outside of Illinois who lack understanding of the local political landscape, versus those who are demonstrably present and concerned, and the time being given to those who constitute a who’s-who of the status quo. Furthermore, the lack of participation from those representing the legal aid, minority, forensic, medical, mental health, religious, law enforcement, veterans and extended parenting communities is also troubling.”


The Illinois Family Law Study Committee was created as a result of HR1101, a resolution sponsored by State Representative John Fritchey and House Speaker Michael Madigan to review the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act to provide recommendations for statute modification to the General Assembly.

Burns points to several key reasons for why the General Assembly and Bar associations lack the openness and honesty to pursue broad-based legal reforms. “Divorce and child custody determinations comprise one-third to one-half of all civil litigation in Illinois, creating a huge revenue stream for otherwise opportunistic attorneys who thrive on inter-personal conflict and the demise of parent-child relationships,” says Burns. “Divorce lawyers in particular represent the underbelly of trial bar, and are largely promoted and protected by Bar associations who do their bidding, regardless of the substantial harm created by their manipulation of these statutes, or how they are perceived by our society.”

“Without external intervention, Domestic Relations reform in Illinois will continue to be hampered by patronage that exists between judges and Bar associations, coupled with agenda-driven policies at the local, state and federal level that are being driven by the domestic violence lobby and misguided feminist groups, in addition to a general lack of interest by lawmakers who have sought to avoid contentious issues related to divorce, or who simply lack the moral clarity to protect intact families.”

“Policymakers who ignore the very tender nature of parent-child bonds in this context and who seek to tacitly support those who benefit from their demise are amongst our nation’s losers and bottom-feeders,” says Burns, speaking in reference to the influence of bar associations and inaction by the General Assembly to update existing statutes to reduce family conflict and enhance parental involvement, which remain substantively unchanged for more than 30 years.

In conjunction with ongoing support for responsible fatherhood programs by Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama, Burns suggests that there is a broad-based concern to find new policy innovations at the local, state and federal level to keep both parents actively involved after contentious divorce proceedings in order to champion their involvement where government programs have otherwise failed to compensate for their absence, often driven by irrational policies that some critics suggest tacitly categorize them as potential criminals, contributing to higher rates of domestic violence, suicide, parental kidnapping and non-compliance with court orders.

Burns points to contemporary studies that reflect changing attitudes of biological fathers who desire to play a more active role in raising their children as among the key trends that are being shunned and ignored. Studies by Arizona State University researchers Dr. Sanford Braver and Professor William Fabricius are part of a larger body of research being performed which reflects the changing societal trends and the longing of fathers to be more actively involved with their children.

Burns has promoted several key proposals to help reduce protracted divorce and child custody determinations which have failed gain attention from lawmakers in Springfield for fear of retaliation by the trial bar and feminist groups, ranging from issues that concern presumptive joint custody to more substantive penalties for parents who attempt to alienate children or bring knowingly false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, a common practice at the onset of protracted divorce cases.

“Reforming Illinois’ divorce and child custody statutes is an issue that implicates political, systemic and societal issues that occupy a much larger paradigm, but an over-emphasis on gender issues has largely polarized legitimate reform efforts,” says Burns, referring to the presence of groups such as Fathers for Justice, which is known for outlandish public relations stunts to draw attention to themselves. But Burns is quick to point to other forces that have stifled meaningful public dialog.

“While we’ve heard rhetoric promoting responsible fatherhood in order to improve supports for children from both conservative and liberal policymakers, the feminist movement remains incredibly paranoid and combative of fathers for fear of losing political influence, and remains steadfast in portraying them as batterers, deadbeats and child molesters,” says Burns, who has followed the issue for more than 15 years. “Combined with the sordid ambitions of trial lawyers, father’s rights activists, social welfare bureaucrats, and partisan interests at the local, state and federal level, you have the perfect storm for supporting a one-sided policy debate that ultimately champions out-of-wedlock child births, single-parent households, and a promulgation of the social welfare state that seeks to supplant parental involvement. Within this context of ignorance, disenfranchised children have very little chance of enjoying substantial relationships with both of their parents until society begins to understand how these groups have shamefully and unjustly manipulated the issue for more than 30 years.”


About the Illinois Alliance for Parents and Children

The Illinois Alliance for Parents and Children is a non-partisan public interest group located in Chicago. Our primary policy objectives concern the protection and promotion of parental involvement and autonomy across all areas of society where children are impacted. IAPC promotes unique policy initiatives and programs through research, advocacy and outreach activities, and seeks to establish a substantive Family Policy that reflects the changing needs of our culture.


For more information, contact IAPC President Michael Burns at info(at)illinoisparentsandchildren(dot)org

State Plans to Enlist 1,000 More in All Kids Health Insurance Program

(CHICAGO) --As part of a campaign to enlist 1,000 more children in the state-sponsored All Kids health insurance program, Governor Blagojevich helped families fill out applications Saturday at St. Mary of Nazareth Hospital on the near North Side of Chicago, one of 50 sites that accepted applications.

About 1.4 million children have enrolled in the program since the July 2006 launch. Blagojevich says that up to 200,000 other children in Illinois lack health insurance.

Blagojevich announced at a news conference that the next 1,000 families who enroll in All Kids will also get a free $50 gas card.

Quebec Girl Wins Court Case Against Father for Field Trip

The National Post published an intriguing story on June 18, 2008 of a 12-year-old Quebec girl who took her father to court after he refused to allow her to attend a school field trip, providing another case that reflects the continued onslaught against parental autonomy.

The girl's lawyer defended the action as "a necessary move to ensure the child was not denied a significant rite of passage." The case was upheld by the judge last week, in a case that continues to draw international attention from parental rights advocates from around the globe.

The daughter's attorney insisted that while court was a last resort, the situation called for it. "This was not a question of going to the movies or not, or going online or not -- because obviously, I wouldn't have intervened in that," she said.

Critics of the case claim that such a ruling opens the way for equally implausible scenarios such as children taking their parents to court for such things as being denied access to television or using the Internet.

Read more here.

Shared Parenting: A Catalyst for Sustainability in Illinois?

Advocates cite lack of reform in divorce and child custody laws as continued problem for at-risk communities


(CHICAGO) -- As another legislative session comes to a close, there is a rising tone of disapproval being levied against Illinois lawmakers by a growing number of parental rights advocates who claim that the Domestic Relations court system is out of control, and operates from outdated statutes that violate the civil rights of parents.

"Illinois' Domestic Relations courts routinely violate the civil rights of fit, law-abiding parents by failing to comport with federal law or recognize the fundamental nature of parental rights," says Michael Burns, President and Co-founder of the Illinois Alliance for Parents and Children, a non-partisan public interest group located in Chicago.

"Illinois violates the civil rights of parents by utilizing an unlawful evidentiary standard that, by default, that classifies them as potential criminals until proven worthy to care for their children under the guise of a "best interest" determination, which forces parents to prove who's the best parent--often leading to bankruptcy, and playing a role in domestic violence, parental alienation, non-compliance with court orders, and parental kidnapping," says Burns.

"Illinois lags far behind other states in embracing substantive reforms in Family Law, largely due to the resistance by trial lawyers and other special interests who seek to champion disenfranchisement through single-parenting and other forms of Nanny government," says Burns, who suggests that the only remedy may come in the form of a lawsuit against the General Assembly.

"We have petitioned to the leadership of the General Assembly in good faith for more than 4 years on this issue. Each time, we are are told that reform measures are disfavored by trial lawyers, and therefore change is not possible," says Burns, who has openly criticized pro-family lawmakers for ignoring the issue for too long.

Burns, who has played a lead role in cultivating dialog amongst Illinois lawmakers and community groups, cites the need for action in the face of continued reluctance and opposition by pro-lawyer politicians who are unwilling to recognize the fundamental liberty interest inherent in parental rights issues stemming from divorce and child custody determinations.

Shared Parenting: A More Collaborative Approach to Divorce

As recently as 2005, Illinois lawmakers sponsored a bill which aimed at establishing a presumption favoring shared legal and physical custody for divorcing or unmarried parents, also known as "shared parenting," following parental separation in cases where a family court determines that both parents are fit to care for their children.

The bill's sponsor, State Represenative Richard Myers (R-Macomb) failed to call the bill for a floor vote due to pressure brought by trial lawyers. In subsequent years, similar resistance was brought to other bills sponsored by State Representative Will Davis (D-Chicago) and State Representative Dale Risinger (R-Peroria).

Parental rights advocates such as Burns believe the approach is dynamic by seeking to refine the post-divorce parenting arrangement to approximate the parent-child relationships in the original two-parent home in order to cultivate a more collaborative environment for parents while seeking to reduce conflict.

Legal advocates such as New Jersey attorney David Heleniak cite shared parenting as a viable way for Domestic Relations courts to provide equal rights and responsibilities for active parents. "If parents are fit, willing and able to share in the costs and responsibilities of parenting their children on a substantial basis, and live close enough to one another--there's no reason why
shared parenting wouldn't work, even in high conflict cases."

"As the living arrangement that most closely resembles the pre-divorce family in cases where both parents had an active parenting role before divorce, shared parenting encompasses both shared physical caretaking (the actual day-to-day care of children) and equal authority regarding children's education, medical care, and religious upbringing," says Heleniak, who is among a growing number of legal advocates calling for reforms in Family Law to protect parental involvement with at-risk youth.


Sustainability as Key Issue in Divorce

Other experts, such as Dr. Mark Rogers, a Chicago-based Forensic Consultant, assert a broader view when examining the lack of reform in areas of divorce and child custody. "The current adversarial system is simply not sustainable for us as an expanded community, with changing needs concerning the nurture of families and children, especially those evolving from at-risk environments," says Rogers, who consults with federal agencies on issues that impact gang involvement in cities like Chicago, and national issues that influence domestic terrorism.

Rogers cites truancy, low-academic performance, gang involvement, teen pregnancy, domestic violence and violent crime as maintaining a common thread with children raised in the absence of dual-parent involvement, or where the father has been significantly removed from children's weekly schedules.

"These issues will not be resolved merely by spending more money on education, law enforcement or other expensive government programs that bear little fruit in their outcome... we need to enact substantive policy reforms that champion parental involvement and autonomy. We can't do this without them, and we certainly can't do this with a system that marginalizes their standing," according to Rogers.

"It should be clear to all concerned that we will be unable to compensate for the growing number of broken, single parent homes unless substantial changes are implemented at the policy level as a short and long-term strategy for success."


About Us

The Illinois Alliance for Parents and Children is a non-partisan public interest group located in Chicago. Our primary policy objectives concern the protection and promotion of parental involvement and autonomy across all areas of society where children are impacted. IAPC promotes unique programs and policy initiatives through research, advocacy and outreach activities--and seeks to establish a substantive Family Policy that reflects the changing needs of our culture.

For more information, visit our Web site, located at www.illinoisparentsandchildren.org

Court reverses spanking ruling, ends family's nightmare

Judge: 'We are unwilling to prohibit corporal punishment'

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Friday that a father who spanked his 12-year-old son 36 times with a maple paddle did not commit physical abuse.

The unanimous ruling finalized the reversal of a lower court's decision, which did deem the punishment administered by Shawn Fraser of Bloomington, Minn., abusive.

The case passed through 3 courts – county, district and state Supreme – while lawyers and judges argued whether there was any evidence of physical or mental harm from the spankings.

The guardian ad litem, an attorney appointed to represent the children's interests, argued that while there was no evidence of injury, inflicting pain should be grounds enough for establishing abuse.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

"We are unwilling to establish a bright-line rule that the infliction of any pain constitutes either physical injury or physical abuse, because to do so would effectively prohibit all corporal punishment of children by their parents," Justice Alan Page wrote for the court.

The law allows "reasonable discipline," the ruling said, and "it is clear to us that the Legislature did not intend to ban corporal punishment."

According to court documents, the Fraser family's oldest son, Gerard, had been caught sneaking out of the house on numerous occasions and lying about his whereabouts. After attempting grounding and other punishments to curb the behavior, the Gerard's parents – devout Christians – discussed biblical verses on corporal punishment with their son and posted the verses on the family fridge.

Gerard was warned that if he snuck out again or was overtly disrespectful to his parents, he would be paddled once for each year of his age.

On the evening of June 29, 2005, Gerard again snuck out, only to be caught by a younger sibling. Gerard's father paddled him 12 times. The boy was spanked again 12 times after "throwing a temper tantrum." When Gerard then grabbed a knife and threatened self-injury, his father disarmed him and spanked him 12 times more – a total of 36 swats administered in intervals over an hour's time span.

"I wasn't trying to harm him," Fraser told the Minneapolis Star Tribune. "I was trying to teach him about the importance of self-control and respect for authority." According to reports, there were no marks or signs of injury on the boy.

Later that evening, the boy snuck out again and was apprehended by the police. Six days later, county human services filed a petition alleging that both of the Fraser boys were in need of protection, and subsequently, the boys were removed into foster care.

Jill Waite, an attorney for Shawn Fraser, told the St. Paul Pioneer Press that the family's 6-month separation was agonizing. The 11-year-old younger son "didn't believe that he would ever be back with his family again," Waite said.

With the help of attorneys, however, the boys were returned to their home, 2 days before Christmas.

As a condition of keeping the boys, Shawn Fraser agreed to discontinue spanking until the courts finalized their rulings. The family remained under the supervision of the county child protective services.

A Hennepin County court eventually ruled that, largely because of the spankings, the Fraser home was "a dangerous environment" and that Shawn Fraser's treatment of the boy constituted "physical abuse."

Shawn Fraser then appealed the case, where a district appeals court affirmed that parents enjoy "a wide latitude regarding the discipline of their children," took into account the child's size (5 feet 2 inches, 195 pounds) and ruled the measures nonabusive. Hennepin County, however, appealed the case to the state Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's Friday ruling upheld the appeals court decision and declined to return the case to lower courts for any further findings. "Almost three years have passed since the incident at issue, during most of which time the children have been living at home without apparent further incident," wrote Justice Page.

The ruling now marks the end of three long years of lawyers, allegations, investigations and protective services for the Fraser family.

"The intrusiveness of the system is amazing," said Waite.

Gerard Fraser, now 15, told the Star Tribune that he's glad the case is settled. Speaking of his parents, he said, "They didn't, like, abuse us or anything. I was a really bad kid…I understand now that my dad paddled me because he loves me, and he wants me to have success in my life. He disciplined me; he didn't abuse me. They're very different things."

Waite told the St. Paul Pioneer Press that the whole family is elated. "After three years," she said, "finally, they'll be able to get their lives back."

Court blasts state's strip-search of children

Social worker enters Christian school without cause, tells kids to remove clothing

Two children who attended a private Christian school in Wisconsin were illegally strip-searched and had their constitutional rights violated by a state social worker, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled Monday.

In Michael C. v. Gresbach, the court said state worker Dana Gresbach violated the children's Fourth Amendment rights to freedom from unreasonable search when she entered Good Hope Christian Academy in Milwaukee, Wis., had the children pulled from the classrooms and told them to remove their clothing when she suspected the parents of spanking in February 2004.

Stephen Crampton, vice president of legal affairs and general counsel for Liberty Counsel, represented the parents of 8-year-old Ian and 9-year-old Alexis when they sued the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare and the caseworker.

"We are obviously pleased with the result, but candidly, we wish they had been more harsh on this renegade department that has ruined the lives of so many well-intentioned families already," he told WND.

Crampton said this type of overstep is common among social workers, and they often do not give it a second thought.

"The social worker performed these strip searches as a matter of routine, estimating that in perhaps one-half of the 300 or so cases she handled every year she subjected kids to a partial disrobing," he said. "In fact, she testified that she considered it so routine that she did not bother to discuss her intentions with her supervisor, even though she spoke to her on her way to the school."

The state had several social workers file affidavits saying they would have followed the same procedure. Crampton said, "That is an alarming admission, and we suspect you would find a similar pattern in social service offices all over America."

When Gresbach entered the school, she handed her business card to Principal Cheryl Reetz and told her she needed to see Ian and Alexis. Reetz asked the social worker if she could call the children's parents, but Gresbach refused to allow it, saying she would contact them at a later time. The principal then asked if she could remain in the room to observe the interview, but she was denied permission to do so.

According to court documents, state officials claimed they made efforts to speak with the parents and stepparents of the children, but the visits never occurred.

Crampton said the mindset of most social workers is that parents are the problem.

"They go to great lengths to lock parents out of the process, treating them as the enemy, and ultimately doing more harm than good by driving something of a wedge between the children and their parents," he said.

The social worker spent nearly 15 minutes alone in the room with each child. She searched Ian's wrists for bruising and asked him to pull up his shirt. He complied, and she examined his back for suspicious marks. Gresbach then privately inspected Alexis, asking her to pull down her tights and lift up her dress. The worker was unable to find any sign of injury on the children's bodies.

Gresbach's behavior is not a one-time incident uncommon among social workers. In Doe v. Carla Heck, the court addressed an eerily similar child abuse investigation where children's rights to freedom from unreasonable search were violated by the same state agency on the premises of another private educational facility.

"The problem almost always arises only in private schools," Crampton said. "Public schools, as agents of the government, routinely roll over and give social workers access to any student they wish to see, provide a room for them, and in short serve up our children on a platter, without bothering to contact parents," he said.

Gresbach claimed she was entitled to qualified immunity because her actions were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; however, the court disagreed.

"We do not exempt child welfare workers from adhering to basic Fourth Amendment principles under non-exigent circumstances – to do so would be imprudent," the court stated. "… we do not believe that requiring a child welfare caseworker to act in accordance with basic Fourth Amendment principles is an undue burden on the child welfare system, particularly when it is necessary to conduct an examination of a child's body, which is undoubtedly 'frightening, humiliating and intrusive' to the child."

Crampton said Christian families have the freedom to follow scriptures in administering corporal punishment and should not have their rights violated by power-hungry government officials.

"That social workers and bureaucrats don't like it is no reason to allow the trampling of the constitutional rights of parents and their children," he said. "It is the high privilege and high responsibility of parents to oversee the care, custody and education of their children, not the state."