Why aren&#39;t we allowed to intervene if a child is being psychologically abused? In my understanding, there are two types of child abuses: physical abuse and psychological abuse. For the former, we can call social worker/police to intervene. But for the latter, we cannot do anything. I heard that it's because of the privacy law. I understand the importance of privacy, but why doesn't it count the latter as equaled as the former too? I live in Vietnam, but I think any jurisprudence has the same approach
This answer is based upon united-states law. Outside the United States that law may, and indeed, is likely to, differ, as the legal analysis in U.S. law is unusual in multiple respects with regard to these issue. The premise of the question is basically incorrect. There is not a stark legal definitional distinction between physical abuse and psychological abuse. Child abuse and neglect are defined by Federal and State laws. At the State level, child abuse and neglect may be defined in both civil and criminal statutes. This publication presents civil definitions that determine the grounds for intervention by State child protective agencies. At the Federal level, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) has defined child abuse and neglect as &quot;any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caregiver that results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act that presents an imminent risk of serious harm. CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320), 42 U.S.C. § 5101, Note (§ 3). (Source). This definition and other definitions were contained in the 2010 amendments to the Act, but were not codified in the United States Code's text. State definitions very considerably, but significantly overlap with the CAPTA definition. For example, a non-exclusive list of conduct that constitutes misdemeanor or low level felony child abuse in Colorado if you engage in it includes: you are in a position of trust in relation to the child, and you participate in a continued pattern of conduct that results in the child’s malnourishment; you fail to ensure the child’s access to proper medical care; you participate in a continued pattern of cruel punishment or unreasonable isolation or confinement of the child; you make repeated threats of harm or death to the child or to a significant person in the child’s life in the presence of the child; you commit a continued pattern of acts of domestic violence in the presence of the child; or you participate in a continued pattern of extreme deprivation of hygienic or sanitary conditions in the child’s daily living environment. (The criminal child abuse statute, Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-6-401, is somewhat tricky to parse). Some of this conduct causes emotional harm more than physical harm. As is typical, this only moderately overlaps with the civil standard for termination of parental rights in Colorado pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes §§ 19-3-102 and 19-5-105 which state in the pertinent parts: C.R.S. § 19-3-102: (1) A child is neglected or dependent if: (a) A parent, guardian, or legal custodian has abandoned the child or has subjected him or her to mistreatment or abuse or a parent, guardian, or legal custodian has suffered or allowed another to mistreat or abuse the child without taking lawful means to stop such mistreatment or abuse and prevent it from recurring; (b) The child lacks proper parental care through the actions or omissions of the parent, guardian, or legal custodian; (c) The child's environment is injurious to his or her welfare; (d) A parent, guardian, or legal custodian fails or refuses to provide the child with proper or necessary subsistence, education, medical care, or any other care necessary for his or her health, guidance, or well-being; (e) The child is homeless, without proper care, or not domiciled with his or her parent, guardian, or legal custodian through no fault of such parent, guardian, or legal custodian; (f) The child has run away from home or is otherwise beyond the control of his or her parent, guardian, or legal custodian; (g) The child tests positive at birth for either a schedule I controlled substance, as defined in section 18-18-203, C.R.S., or a schedule II controlled substance, as defined in section 18-18-204, C.R.S., unless the child tests positive for a schedule II controlled substance as a result of the mother's lawful intake of such substance as prescribed. (2) A child is neglected or dependent if: (a) A parent, guardian, or legal custodian has subjected another child or children to an identifiable pattern of habitual abuse; and (b) Such parent, guardian, or legal custodian has been the respondent in another proceeding under this article in which a court has adjudicated another child to be neglected or dependent based upon allegations of sexual or physical abuse, or a court of competent jurisdiction has determined that such parent's, guardian's, or legal custodian's abuse or neglect has caused the death of another child; and (c) The pattern of habitual abuse described in paragraph (a) of this subsection (2) and the type of abuse described in the allegations specified in paragraph (b) of this subsection (2) pose a current threat to the child. C.R.S. § 19-5-105: (3) If, after the inquiry, the other birth parent is identified to the satisfaction of the court or if more than one person is identified as a possible parent, each shall be given notice of the proceeding in accordance with subsection (5) of this section, including notice of the person's right to waive his or her right to appear and contest. If any of them waives his or her right to appear and contest or fails to appear or, if appearing, cannot personally assume legal and physical custody, taking into account the child's age, needs, and individual circumstances, such person's parent-child legal relationship with reference to the child shall be terminated. If the other birth parent or a person representing himself or herself to be the other birth parent appears and demonstrates the desire and ability to personally assume legal and physical custody of the child, taking into account the child's age, needs, and individual circumstances, the court shall proceed to determine parentage under article 4 of this title. If the court determines that the person is the other birth parent, the court shall set a hearing, as expeditiously as possible, to determine whether the interests of the child or of the community require that the other parent's rights be terminated or, if they are not terminated, to determine whether: (a) To award custody to the other birth parent or to the physical custodian of the child; or (b) To direct that a dependency and neglect action be filed pursuant to part 5 of article 3 of this title with appropriate orders for the protection of the child during the pendency of the action. (3.1) The court may order the termination of the other birth parent's parental rights upon a finding that termination is in the best interests of the child and that there is clear and convincing evidence of one or more of the following: (a) That the parent is unfit. In considering the fitness of the child's parent, the court shall consider, but shall not be limited to, the following: (I) Emotional illness, mental illness, or mental deficiency of the parent of such duration or nature as to render the parent unlikely, within a reasonable period of time, to care for the ongoing physical, mental, and emotional needs of the child; (II) A single incident of life-threatening or serious bodily injury or disfigurement of the child or other children; (III) Conduct toward the child or other children of a physically or sexually abusive nature; (IV) A history of violent behavior that demonstrates that the individual is unfit to maintain a parent-child relationship with the minor, which may include an incidence of sexual assault, as defined in section 19-1-103 (96.5), that resulted in the conception of the child; (V) Excessive use of intoxicating liquors or use of controlled substances, as defined in section 18-18-102 (5), C.R.S., that affects the ability of the individual to care and provide for the child; (VI) Neglect of the child or other children; (VII) Injury or death of a sibling or other children due to proven abuse or neglect by such parent; (VIII) Whether, on two or more occasions, a child in the physical custody of the parent has been adjudicated dependent or neglected in a proceeding under article 3 of this title or comparable proceedings under the laws of another state or the federal government; (IX) Whether, on one or more prior occasions, a parent has had his or her parent-child legal relationship terminated pursuant to this section or article 3 of this title or comparable proceedings under the laws of another state or the federal government. (b) That the parent has not established a substantial, positive relationship with the child. The court shall consider, but shall not be limited to, the following in determining whether the parent has established a substantial, positive relationship with the child: (I) Whether the parent has maintained regular and meaningful contact with the child; (II) Whether the parent has openly lived with the child for at least one hundred eighty days within the year preceding the filing of the relinquishment petition or, if the child is less than one year old at the time of the filing of the relinquishment petition, for at least one-half of the child's life; and (III) Whether the parent has openly held out the child as his or her own child. The items in bold have, or could sometimes have, a significant emotional well-being component. In practice, however, this is limited by the constitutional right to raise one's children without undue government interference in circumstances where there is not an imminent risk of serious harm, under the substantive due process doctrine dimensions of the 14th Amendment due process clause, This is especially true when one's child rearing methods of a religious basis implicating the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as incorporated against the states through the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. While these constitutional defenses can be asserted in both cases of alleged physical abuse and alleged psychological abuse, these defenses are particularly hard to penetrate in cases of psychological abuse. In particular, In Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), the &quot;Supreme Court also recognized a substantive due process right 'to control the education of one's children', thus voiding state laws mandating for all students to attend public school.&quot; It said: We think it entirely plain that the Act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control. As often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. These are sometimes described as &quot;privacy rights&quot; (and also include the right to legal contraception and the abortion rights of Roe v. Wade), but in this context, a &quot;privacy right&quot; is not the right to keep something unknown to the general public in the literal sense of the words. Instead, it is a privacy right in the less common sense of the words meaning a right to autonomy and freedom of conscience of a parent, associated with the underlying purposes of other constitutional rights that protect more literal forms of privacy. The other issue is that there is less of a consensus concerning what constitutes psychological abuse sufficiently clearly that it is publicly sanctionable, than there is concerning what constitutes physical abuse. Striking a child for reasons other than to improve a child's behavior is usually considered physical child abuse. Intentionally undermining a child's self-esteem, in contrast, for example, can be justified in myriad ways.
Can someone be arrested for not being ‘nice’ to police? Yes. The arrest may later be declared unlawful, and the cop could later be disciplined by his boss, but if a cop wants to arrest you now for any reason they just can. Seems weird and an abuse of power to me. The available means of dealing with abuse of power have never been in excess. Could they win such a case? Yes. So could your friend. It depends on many many factors.
I have encountered this problem in Pennsylvania. The PA Code requires a District Attorney to approve all private criminal complaints. If the DA declines to prosecute, then an affiant can petition the Court of Common Pleas to review the decision. However the affiant bears the burden of convincing the court that the DA abused his descretion in declining to prosecute, which is a pretty high hurdle. In the United States the only other legal appeal I am aware of is through federal courts under broad federal laws like 18 USC 242 or 42 USC 1983.
There are both statutes and customs aimed at preventing "Malicious Prosecution" and "Abuse of Process." (In Pennsylvania, for example, the 1980 Dragonetti Act allows the victim of a frivolous lawsuit to counter-sue for compensatory damages.) One can also buy insurance against this type of risk: Umbrella liability policies will generally provide a defense against civil lawsuits and any damages awarded, as will many business insurance policies. Of course, none of this is to say that a skilled legal team can't avoid all of these countermeasures and, in practice, take up a significant amount of your time and trouble. We do not have a perfect system of justice.
No To declare that a parent is &quot;unfit&quot; in the US requires at least a decision by a government agency (often called &quot;child protective services&quot; or &quot;child welfare&quot; depending on the state) usually confirmed by a judge. Medical testimony may be persuasive, but neither doctors nor hospitals may make such determinations.
Yes. In a civil case, there are two parties and the case is about finding out who has which obligations to whom. In a civil case, the plaintiff has to prove that they actually incurred damage through the actions of the defendant. A criminal case is the state vs. the defendant. The "wronged party" is the society as a whole, usually represented by the prosecutor. The victim, if there is one, just plays the role of yet another witness to find out if the defendant needs to be punished and how. There are also examples of crimes which are completely victimless but still punished by some societies. For example, in many places sexual intercourse between two consenting adult siblings is a crime (incest), even though there is no victim. Also, for some crimes it is even a crime to attempt to commit it. So one can be punished in a criminal court even though they didn't actually succeed in causing any damage to anyone. Example: I throw a rock at your car. When I hit, you can sue me in a civil court and force me to pay for the repairs. When I miss, I caused no damage to you, so there is nothing you could sue about. But what if I throw a rock at you and miss? That's attempted assault, maybe even attempted murder. When law enforcement finds out about it, I could be arrested, prosecuted and convicted to a prision sentence, even though you are perfectly fine.
Every State in the union has some form of involuntary mental health hold. Regardless of whether or not the patient claims it was an accident, it is incumbent upon the hospital or facility where the individual is held (which is typically at least 72 hours) to do an in-depth analysis of whether the person is a danger to themselves or others. While in this scenario it may've been an inadvertent overdose, the empirical evidence suggests it could have been intentional as the practitioner cannot see into the thoughts and motivations behind the patient's actions. Even taking the patient at face-value, addiction to the extent of overdose is also a mental health issue, which may cause a person to be a danger to themselves. From a clinical perspective, it is much more likely than not that one of the two scenarios occurred, versus a truly mistaken overdose. One would need to mistake their actions numerous times in a day to take so much as to overdose. If you look at it from the inverse perspective, if the facility failed to keep a person who'd just overdosed, or the first responder failed to initiate a hold and the person later died, minimally they would be liable if sued by the family in an action for wrongful death. The unfortunate facts are that if a person was set on committing suicide, it unlikely they would be forthcoming with that fact, for this very reason (the mandatory hold), so a person's word cannot be the determining factor. Even if someone was not intentionally trying to take their life, having taken enough Xanax to cause medical overdose would suggest the potential that even if not suicidal, the individual was at a minimum abusing the medication by taking much more than prescribed (or in a way that is contraindicated - such as with alcohol or other depressants) and potentially suffering from benzodiazepine addiction. Either way, if the hold was not initiated or cut short - and then someone ended up dying from an overdoes - the responsibility and potential liability is the same. A person who is suicidal can reassess what may be a snap decision, or have a chemical imbalance stabilized, or a severe addiction identified in that amount of time. For the person who ctually takes so much medication as to mistakenly cause overdose, this is certainly inconvenient; however, 72 hours is a short time in the grand scheme of things to potentially save a life. The law will nearly always err on the side of safety and prevention.
There isn't any indication in that news story that the disabled son was anywhere nearby. I agree the situation you describe sounds like a legitimate use of the placard, but it seems in this situation, the placard was being used in a manner totally unrelated to the transport of a disabled person. My guess is that the cops cited her because the son wasn't in the car, and was not inside the establishment at which she parked. California code has this to say: A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit another person to use the placard only while in the presence or reasonable proximity of the disabled person for the purpose of transporting the disabled person. So as long as the disabled person is within a "reasonable proximity", and the placard is being used to transport them, they do not have to be inside the car to make using the placard legitimate. In this case, the woman was just transporting herself and using the placard anyway, which is illegal.