NJ Supreme Court Rules That State Has the Burden of Proof in Child Abuse Cases

[excalibur]

It is quite sad that the opposite was the norm. Other states need to get on the bandwagon. CPS nationwide has quite a few evil people running things.

In a positive move, the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that parents in family court do not have to prove that they did not abuse their children. The burden of proof instead rests with the state to prove its case. It may seem unbelievable that it has ever been any other way, but in many states family courts have different rules of evidence than criminal courts and parents are automatically assumed guilty until proven innocent. This is one of the major ways that family courts deny families their due process.

The New Jersey Monitor reported:

The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday family courts cannot require parents affirmatively prove they did not abuse their children, sending a case involving alleged child abuse back to family court.

The case stemmed from an appeal involving two parents accused of injuring their baby by shaking. The family had medical experts who said the condition came from epileptic seizures, while child protective services found experts to claim that the baby was abused.

The trial court found the child’s injuries indicated abuse, which the Division of Child Protection and Permanency inferred could only have been enacted by the infant’s parents.
The burden of evidence then shifted to the parents, who were tasked with proving they did not allow their child to be injured or that they did not inflict the injuries themselves.
Neither testified, and both were found responsible for the alleged abuse and neglect, though the court never identified specifically who caused the injuries.

The Supreme Court found that the lower court judges had erred in shifting the burden of evidence to the parents. Family courts operate under the preponderance of evidence standard, which is a much lower standard than criminal courts operate under. Under the preponderance of evidence standard, the state only has to convince the judge that the defendant is more than 50% likely to have committed the offense.

...​

NJ Supreme Court Rules That State Has the Burden of Proof in Child Abuse Cases

pjmedia.com

 

[Moonglow]

The aspect of guilty verdict by a tribunal is all they used for years...

 

[DGS49]

This is a tough call. Often, the parents are the only ones who know exactly what happens, so they could easily be guilty and conspire to lie about it.

 

[Rogue AI]

This is a tough call. Often, the parents are the only ones who know exactly what happens, so they could easily be guilty and conspire to lie about it.

How is it a tough call when the citizens are protected by due process with the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? State overreach is getting ridiculous.

 

[pknopp]

This is a tough call. Often, the parents are the only ones who know exactly what happens, so they could easily be guilty and conspire to lie about it.

All of our rights have potential negative aspects to them but they are better than the alternative.

 

[Resnic]

This is a tough call. Often, the parents are the only ones who know exactly what happens, so they could easily be guilty and conspire to lie about it.

I'd rather put faith in parents than put faith in the state, which was shown in that article found their own experts to state the child was abused despite a statement from an actual doctor on the child's behalf.

Allowing the state control to protect the few isn't worth it. Most parents are decent, some are shitty. All allowing the state to do what it wants is going to create more bad situations for children because the few bad parents are still going to be bad parents, but the state will cause more misery and take away kids to out in foster care that don't need to be.