(MA)5th Amnd. Rights shouldn't trump kids' safety?

USP45 · February 1, 2002, 08:40 AM

This is a great example where bad legislation is just itching to get in.

http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/lo...lt02012002.htm

Quote:

DSS worries over cult ruling: 5th-Amendment rights shouldn't trump kids' safety, officials warn

by Dave Wedge
Friday, February 1, 2002

A looming decision as to whether an Attleboro cult couple has the right to hide their newborn baby to protect themselves from criminal prosecution could have a crippling effect on how the state deals with abusive parents, officials said yesterday.

``The notion of being able to invoke your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to prevent anyone from intervening to protect a child would essentially block our work,'' Department of Social Services Commissioner Harry Spence said yesterday. ``The precedential effect would be devastating.''

The state Appeals Court is considering an appeal filed by Rebecca and David Corneau - members of the Attleboro-based cult The Body - that claims the two were within their rights to take the Fifth when an Attleboro Juvenile Court judge asked them where their newborn is being kept.

DSS officials fear not only that a ruling in favor of the Corneaus could kill their chances at finding the couple's baby, but that it could open the door for dozens of abusive parents to follow suit.

``We would be powerless,'' DSS spokeswoman Carol Yelverton said. ``Should our society decide to follow this train of thought, then a father raping his daughter could just shut the door in our face. Helpless children would be victimized. It's chilling.''

Yesterday, the Corneaus' lawyer, J.W. Carney Jr., took his argument - against jailing the couple during their appeal - to the state Supreme Judicial Court. Carney, who has vowed to appeal the case until he exhausts all options, says the couple's rights outweigh the government's obligation to protect the child from neglect and abuse.

``So you would say that their right against self-incrimination trumps any other rights involved,'' Judge Roderick L. Ireland said to Carney.

``Yes,'' Carney replied.

Last month, Attleboro Juvenile Court Judge Kenneth Nasif ruled that the Corneaus should be jailed for contempt for refusing to tell investigators what happened to their newborn, which is believed to have been born in early December.

The state Appeals Court upheld Nasif's decision to jail them but the couple will remain free until Roderick issues a ruling Monday. It could be up to a year before the state Appeals Court rules on the issue of whether parents can invoke their rights against self-incrimination in child protection cases.

DSS lawyers argue that the couple's rights are secondary because they are members of a reclusive religious sect in which two children have died.

The Corneaus' son, Jeremiah, died during a 1999 home birth and was secretly buried in Maine alongside his infant cousin, Sameul Robidoux, who prosecutors say was starved to death.

Samuel's parents, Jacques and Karen Robidoux, are in jail awaiting trial on murder charges. The boy's aunt, Michelle Mingo, is charged as an accessory for concocting a bizarre religious prophecy that prosecutors say made the group stop feeding the boy.

DSS has taken four children from the Corneaus, including a baby girl born in state custody under court order in October 2000. In all, 14 children have been taken from the reclusive religious sect because of the suspicious deaths and allegations that group members paddle the children, leaving scars.

Thairlar · February 1, 2002, 09:33 AM

Like it or not, parents are the ultimate authority when it comes to their children. Shall we license the right to reproduce next? Failure to turn your children over for state inspection shouldn't be a crime, nor should it be a crime to not want to seek modern medical attention due to religious beliefs. The First Amendment is being attacked just as vehemently in this case, and even though I believe these peoples' beliefs to be rather backward and narrow minded, they have the right to them. To denounce anyone whose religious beliefs differ significantly from the mainstream as cultists and seek to infringe on their freedom of religion is repugnant.

deanf · February 1, 2002, 03:40 PM

Quote:

``So you would say that their right against self-incrimination trumps any other rights involved,'' Judge Roderick L. Ireland said to Carney.

``Yes,'' Carney replied.

Judge Ireland asked the wrong question. He should have asked "So you would say that their right against self-incrimination trumps any conflicting powers or interests of the state?"

Answer: Yes.

Ralf · February 1, 2002, 04:12 PM

This whole human history/legal/constitutional/fight for freedom thing is just one aspect of the big debate. The other aspect is: What About The Children?

Well, OK, that is sarcasm. But the question of the relationship between the State and the Citizen and Citizen's Child is an interesting one.

As a libertarian I think that parents should get a lot of leeway, but also that a child is not property of said parents.

A better question is: "What is the State's responsibility for the progeny of the "citizens" on welfare. How many Gangstas and other all-around Patheticos would we have if the State had never become the Welfare State?

The parents in this case may be objectionable, but they have a long way to go to match the volume of pain that the Welfare State has procreated.

February 1, 2002, 09:33 AM	#2
Thairlar Senior Member Join Date: November 8, 2001 Location: MA Posts: 568	Like it or not, parents are the ultimate authority when it comes to their children. Shall we license the right to reproduce next? Failure to turn your children over for state inspection shouldn't be a crime, nor should it be a crime to not want to seek modern medical attention due to religious beliefs. The First Amendment is being attacked just as vehemently in this case, and even though I believe these peoples' beliefs to be rather backward and narrow minded, they have the right to them. To denounce anyone whose religious beliefs differ significantly from the mainstream as cultists and seek to infringe on their freedom of religion is repugnant. __________________ Skip Pacheco, Libertarian for State Representative Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we can not be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference in having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? -Patrick Henry

February 1, 2002, 04:12 PM	#4
Ralf Member Join Date: June 8, 2001 Posts: 95	This whole human history/legal/constitutional/fight for freedom thing is just one aspect of the big debate. The other aspect is: What About The Children? Well, OK, that is sarcasm. But the question of the relationship between the State and the Citizen and Citizen's Child is an interesting one. As a libertarian I think that parents should get a lot of leeway, but also that a child is not property of said parents. A better question is: "What is the State's responsibility for the progeny of the "citizens" on welfare. How many Gangstas and other all-around Patheticos would we have if the State had never become the Welfare State? The parents in this case may be objectionable, but they have a long way to go to match the volume of pain that the Welfare State has procreated.