Loading...

Uphold the Constitution, Defend Parental Rights

Children Are Not the Property of the State

Vague laws and weak constitutional safeguards have given child protection agencies and family court judges extraordinary power over parents and children. Government officials can remove children from their homes before proving abuse, parental unfitness, or imminent danger. Even when allegations collapse, courts may continue restricting custody and parenting time without the level of evidence that should be required to overcome parental rights and sever a family relationship.

My three daughters have suffered the consequences of that system. I prevailed in three separate court proceedings—including a unanimous jury acquittal—without any finding that I had harmed my children. Yet the State of Minnesota still prevented my daughters from returning home and continues to deny me any relationship with my oldest daughter.

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the fundamental right of parents to direct the care, custody, and upbringing of their children. Yet parental rights are too often treated as optional when child protection agencies and family courts intervene.

Children need protection from abuse. They also need protection from government systems that wrongfully separate them from loving, fit parents.

These institutions will continue exceeding their authority until the law imposes clear limits, meaningful accountability, and enforceable protections for parental rights.

Please Join the Petition!

Amend Your State Constitution

States must protect the rights of families enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

For too long, family courts and juvenile courts have operated outside the bounds of the U.S. Constitution.

Please Join the Petition!

Rescue Children, Preserve Families

A System That Investigates Millions of Families

Child protection investigations are not rare. According to Human Rights Watch, one in three children in the United States will be involved in a child welfare investigation by age 18, and a child is removed from their home approximately every three minutes.

Federal data show the enormous reach of this system. In fiscal year 2023, approximately 3.1 million children received a response from Child Protective Services, but only 546,159 were identified as victims of maltreatment—fewer than one in five. An unsubstantiated case is not necessarily a deliberately false report, but the disparity demonstrates how millions of families are subjected to government investigation without a finding that abuse or neglect occurred.

These investigations can be intrusive, traumatic, and difficult for parents to navigate. Families are often expected to cooperate with caseworkers who simultaneously serve as investigators, service coordinators, witnesses, and advocates for continued state intervention.

Chris Gottlieb, a New York University law professor and child-welfare expert, argues that these opposing responsibilities create an inherent conflict: the same social workers expected to help parents may also be gathering evidence against them. She recommends separating the investigative and supportive roles.

The Harm Continues in Family Court

Parents and children can face similar dangers in family court. In high-conflict custody disputes, accusations of abuse or neglect may be used to gain leverage, triggering investigations and restrictions that can permanently damage parent-child relationships—even when the allegations are never substantiated.

Research generally supports preserving meaningful relationships with both fit parents. Wake Forest University professor Linda Nielsen reviewed 60 studies comparing joint and sole physical custody. In 48 of those studies, children in shared physical custody had better outcomes on all measures or better outcomes on some measures with equal outcomes on others. Only six studies found a worse result on a single measure, while finding equal or better outcomes on the remaining measures.

The outcomes studied included:

  • Academic and cognitive development
  • Depression, anxiety, and self-esteem
  • Behavioral problems and substance use
  • Physical and mental health
  • Relationships with parents and other family members

Yet many family courts continue to treat substantial time with both fit parents as optional rather than presumptive.

A System That Can Reward Conflict

Family conflict supports an expensive network of attorneys, custody evaluators, parenting consultants, therapists, supervised-visitation providers, and treatment programs. Many of these professionals provide legitimate and necessary services. Nevertheless, the system’s structure can reward prolonged litigation and continued intervention rather than early resolution and family preservation.

Judges may rely heavily on agency reports, custody professionals, and mental-health providers when deciding whether a parent may maintain a relationship with a child. Parents can spend years attempting to satisfy shifting requirements, while children lose irreplaceable time with their families. Some cases continue until the children turn 18 and the courts no longer have authority to repair the damage.

The consequences do not end when the case closes. Children, parents, extended families, and society continue living with the emotional, relational, and financial fallout.

Overreach Also Endangers Abused Children

Unnecessary investigations do not merely harm innocent families. They consume the time and resources needed to identify children who are genuinely in danger.

Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, argues that overwhelming child-protection systems with false allegations and trivial cases makes serious abuse harder to detect. He compares endangered children to needles hidden within an unnecessarily expanding haystack.

Effective child protection and family preservation are not opposing goals. A system that respects due process, parental rights, and family integrity can focus its resources more effectively on children who truly need protection.

Why We Need a Constitutional Amendment

Parental rights should not depend on the discretion of an individual agency worker, custody professional, or judge.

A state constitutional amendment would establish clear and enforceable protection for the fundamental right of fit parents to direct the care, custody, and upbringing of their children. It would also require the government to meet a meaningful evidentiary burden before interfering with or severing a parent-child relationship.

Children must be protected from abuse. They must also be protected from unnecessary government separation.

Defending parental rights is part of protecting children.

Resources: Human Rights Watch Research, Journal of Child Custody 2018 Report, Health and Human Services 2021 Report, NPR 2023 Analysis

Our Legislative Priorities

  • Establish Constitutional Protection for Parental Rights

    State constitutions should expressly recognize the fundamental right of fit parents to direct the care, custody, education, and upbringing of their children.

    Any government action that substantially interferes with the parent-child relationship should be subject to strict judicial scrutiny. The state should be required to prove that its intervention serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to protect a child from serious harm.

    A vague appeal to the “best interests of the child” should never be enough to override the parental rights of a fit parent.

  • Narrow and Clarify the Definitions of Abuse and Neglect

    State laws frequently define abuse and neglect so broadly that poverty, unconventional parenting, family conflict, or disagreement with government professionals can trigger invasive investigations.

    The law should distinguish clearly between:

    • Serious physical or sexual abuse;
    • Imminent danger requiring emergency intervention;
    • Conditions caused primarily by poverty or lack of resources; and
    • Parenting decisions that may differ from a government worker’s personal preferences but do not place a child in danger.

    Children should not be removed from their homes without specific, credible evidence of imminent serious harm. Emergency removals should receive an immediate evidentiary hearing, and continued separation should require clear and convincing evidence.

    Conduct amounting to serious physical or sexual abuse should be investigated by law enforcement and prosecuted through the criminal justice system, where constitutional safeguards apply.

  • Replace the Family-Policing Model With a Support-First System

    The current child-welfare model combines investigation, surveillance, service provision, evidence gathering, and family separation within the same government structure.

    Those functions should be separated.

    Families experiencing poverty, housing instability, mental-health challenges, disability, or temporary crises should be offered voluntary, community-based assistance—not threatened with the loss of their children.

    Coercive state intervention should be reserved for cases involving credible evidence of serious abuse or imminent danger. Supportive services should be administered independently from the agencies responsible for investigating and prosecuting abuse allegations.

    The goal should be to preserve families whenever children can remain safely at home.

  • Reform Mandatory-Reporting Laws

    Blanket mandatory-reporting laws encourage professionals to report families based on vague suspicions because they fear criminal, professional, or civil consequences if they do not report.

    A 2024 national study found that variations in mandated-reporting policies were not associated with improved reporting or substantiation rates, raising serious questions about whether broader mandates accurately identify maltreatment.

    States should replace fear-driven reporting requirements with a more precise standard:

    • Reports should require reasonable suspicion grounded in specific, observable facts.
    • Allegations of serious criminal abuse should be routed to trained law-enforcement investigators.
    • Families primarily needing material assistance should be referred to voluntary community services.
    • Good-faith reporters should remain protected.
    • Knowingly false or malicious reports should carry meaningful consequences.

    The purpose of reporting laws should be to identify endangered children accurately, not to funnel millions of families into intrusive investigations.

  • Presume Equal Parenting Time Between Fit Parents

    At the outset of a separation or divorce, courts should presume that joint legal custody and substantially equal parenting time serve the interests of children when both parents are fit.

    That presumption should be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence of abuse, serious neglect, parental unfitness, or a substantial danger to the child. Courts should be required to make detailed written findings whenever they deny a fit parent equal custody or substantially equal parenting time.

    Family conflict alone should not be used to justify removing one parent from a child’s life. The current winner-take-all system encourages litigation by giving each parent a financial and relational incentive to portray the other as unfit or less qualified.

    Children should not lose a loving parent merely because their parents’ relationship ended.

  • Guarantee Due Process and the Right to a Jury Trial Before Family Separation

    Parents should receive meaningful constitutional protections before the government permanently or substantially restricts custody, parenting time, or the parent-child relationship.

    When the government seeks to terminate parental rights, permanently transfer custody, or deny a parent all or substantially all contact with a child based on allegations of abuse, neglect, unfitness, abandonment, or danger, the parent should have the right to demand a trial before an impartial jury.

    The jury should determine whether the government has proved the factual grounds for intervention. A judge should not be permitted to impose a permanent or long-term separation unless the jury first finds the required grounds by clear and convincing evidence—or, when parental rights would be permanently terminated, beyond a reasonable doubt.

    These protections should also include:

    • Prompt and specific notice of every allegation;
    • Access to all evidence used against the parent;
    • The right to confront and cross-examine witnesses;
    • The right to subpoena witnesses and present evidence;
    • Court-appointed counsel for parents who cannot afford representation;
    • Complete recording of child interviews and material agency contacts;
    • Independent judicial review immediately after an emergency removal;
    • A presumption favoring in-home safety measures over removal;
    • Exclusion of unreliable hearsay and improperly obtained evidence;
    • Written findings identifying the evidence and legal standard applied;
    • A requirement that the government use the least restrictive means available; and
    • Meaningful appellate review before an irreversible termination becomes final.

    Emergency action may sometimes be necessary to protect a child from immediate serious harm. But emergency removal should be temporary and followed by a prompt evidentiary hearing. It must not become a shortcut around the parent’s right to a jury trial before prolonged or permanent family separation.

    The jury should decide disputed allegations of parental wrongdoing. Only after those allegations are proven should a judge determine the least restrictive remedy necessary to protect the child.

    No parent should be forced to prove innocence while the government is relieved of its obligation to prove danger.

  • Create Real Accountability and Legal Remedies

    Parental rights are meaningless if government officials and court professionals face no consequences for violating them.

    States should establish:

    • Meaningful sanctions for knowingly presenting false, fabricated, concealed, or materially misleading evidence;
    • Professional discipline for therapists, custody evaluators, guardians, parenting consultants, and other court professionals who exceed their roles or violate ethical duties;
    • A private right of action allowing parents to seek damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief for serious violations of parental rights;
    • Mandatory attorney-fee and litigation-cost awards for parents who successfully challenge unlawful government action; and
    • Limits on immunity when officials act dishonestly, recklessly, maliciously, or clearly outside their lawful authority.

    Good-faith mistakes made within lawful authority should be distinguished from intentional misconduct and reckless disregard for constitutional rights. Immunity must not protect officials who fabricate evidence, conceal exculpatory information, make knowingly false representations, retaliate against parents, or abuse government power.

    Government institutions will not reliably police themselves. Families need enforceable rights, independent oversight, meaningful remedies, and consequences strong enough to deter future misconduct.

To Defend, We Must Amend

Proposed State Constitutional Amendment

“Whereas parents have a fundamental right to the custody and companionship of their minor children, in case of dissolution or separation, each parent shall retain that right, unless proven through clear and convincing evidence it would risk egregious bodily harm to the child.”

Add Your Name to the Family Rights Amendment

The only way to protect a child’s relationship with both parents is to remove the “broad discretion” of the courts through an amendment to state constitutions. Hundreds of thousands of children in the United States face separation from a loving parent because of this abuse of power.

0+
Signatures

Be a Child Rescuer

You can make an immediate impact by contacting your Minnesota legislator. Send an email to JC saying you’d like to help.