Source: http://blog.liftingtheveil.org/2013/07/27/your-social-networks-support-group-may-be-deleterious-to-your-parental-rights/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:45:02+00:00

Document:
In so holding, the court found the information posted on his profile highly relevant and determined that it suggested his lifestyle was not conducive to one in the best interest of a child. As cases like this illustrate, content on an individual‘s social networking profile may now play a role in establishing criminal or civil liability in court proceedings. More importantly, this case stands for the proposition that users can and will be held accountable for their statements on social networking sites, sometimes with life-altering consequences.
Just how many of those over 83 million fake identities on Facebook may belong to vindictive ex-spouses, jilted lovers, police trawling for brownie points in chat rooms, or social workers hoping their hapless “client” may say something incriminating in a forum intended to provide help and support is anyone’s best guess. Without question, it does happen, and when it does, it may produce results that may well be disastrous enough to derail an otherwise successful effort at regaining custody of one’s children from the state.
Education Department officials are threatening school principals with lawsuits if they fail to monitor and curb students’ lunchtime chat and evening Facebook time for expressing ideas and words that are deemed by Washington special-interest groups to be harassment of some students.
There has only been muted opposition to this far-reaching policy among the professionals and advocates in the education sector, most of whom are heavily reliant on funding and support from top-level education officials. The normally government-averse tech-sector is also playing along, and on Mar. 11, Facebook declared that it was “thrilled” to work with White House officials to foster government oversight of teens’ online activities.
According to the letter, composed by Russlynn Ali, who heads the Department of Education’s civil rights office, harassing conduct “may take many forms, including verbal acts and name-calling; graphic and written statements, which may include use of cell phones or the Internet… it does not have to include intent to harm, be directed at a specific target, or involve repeated incidents…” In plain English, such conduct may involve almost anything, anywhere, at any hour of the day. A quick scan with Google reveals that scores of school districts have adapted the language into their policies. Thus, the monitoring apparatus continues ever to expand.
Debi Schriner, resource developer with the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, has found Facebook a good source to locate relatives interested in foster parenting state wards.
“Facebook is particularly good to use in identifying the relations of wards, Schriner said. Some people on Facebook are better family historians and describe how they are related. This information even leads her to relatives whose names have changed through marriage, such as aunts and uncles with different surnames than the youth or parents,” the DHHS release explains.
This only hints at the level of online monitoring by child protection agencies, schools, and other organizations. Consider that according to a press release issued by careerbuilder.com on June 27, 2013, 39 percent of prospective employers screen job prospects through social media sites. A national survey conducted by Harris Interactive for careerbuilder.com, covering the period of February 11 to March 6, found that 43% of hiring managers who used social media for screening applicants found information online that disqualified them from consideration.
These aren’t people under investigation by child protection agencies; rather they are ordinary people out looking for a job. Any of these applicants, however, has the potential to become the subject of an abuse investigation. Imagine the field day that a CPS caseworker can have with this kind of information.
“Three boys aged four, seven and nine were taken into care following a private court hearing in Chelmsford Crown Court on May 9.
“Within minutes of the court hearing, Siobhan Condon, said to be a senior Basildon social worker based at Ely House had commented on her Facebook page about the case.
In In re: Z.B.E.A., a minor appeal of: K.N. a non-precedential decision issued on July 9, 2013, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld a lower court’s decree denying the Mother’s petition to terminate the Father’s parental rights to his child in a divorce action. The Child was born in March 2010. The Father, who was unemployed, provided childcare for his Child and the Mother’s son from another relationship. Mother and Father ended their relationship in June 2010. As per their oral agreement, the Mother retained primary physical custody of the Child and allowed Dad visitation.
In March 2011, Mother filed for and was, not surprisingly, awarded child support. Thereafter, the Mother moved, and failed to provide the Father with either her new address or new telephone number. In March of 2012, the Father arranged to file a complaint for custody, but because he was incarcerated from April 2012 to August 2012 for – you guessed it — failing to pay child support, he was unable to do so. The Mother filed a petition to terminate the Father’s parental rights on July 30, 2012. The trial court held a hearing on the petition on February 8, 2013, ultimately finding that the Mother “had not met her burden of proof that Father’s parental rights should be involuntarily terminated and denied Mother’s petition.” The appeal followed.
Without conceding that she deliberately created obstacles impeding communication and association between Father and Child, Mother further argues that Father failed to use all available resources to preserve his parental relationship and to exercise reasonable firmness in resisting obstacles to maintaining the parent-child relationship. Mother specifically argues that Father could have obtained her address from her September 2011 custody complaint, called her at work, or spoken to her about Child during child support hearings.
The Court also found that the Father presented evidence of his attempts to procure visitation rights through the legal system; that at one of the child support hearings, he asked the presiding judge about his ability to see his Child and was told that custody was not an issue before the court; and that he testified at some length about his attempts to file for custody in another County. “The trial court found as a fact that Father intended to file a complaint for custody in the future,” the Appellate Court noted. While it wasn’t quite the nail in the proverbial coffin, the Appellate Court also took note that the Father had sent the Mother a Facebook “friend request.” The Mother denied the Father’s Facebook “friend request,” and blocked his ability to send her Facebook messages completely.
Here, the record supports the juvenile court’s findings that Mother did not maintain regular contact with E.S. for at least eighteen months and that she has made only minimal efforts to support and communicate with E.S. From the time Mother and Father separated in March 2010, Mother made no financial contributions to E.S.’s care and support. Nor did Mother give E.S. any gifts or toys, other than a bag of candy at E.S.’s second birthday. Although Mother testified that she repeatedly asked Father for visitation, this was contrary to Father’s testimony and Mother’s subsequent admission on cross-examination that she did not make more than a minimal effort to have contact with E.S.
While the Mother’s Facebook request for visitation is mentioned only in passing (though it is nevertheless given some consideration) the crucial point is made in dicta: “When circumstances prevent the parent from exercising traditional methods of bonding with his child, he must act persistently to establish the relationship however possible and must vigorously assert his legal rights to the extent necessary. Only then is a biological link transformed into a parental relationship deserving full constitutional protection.” (Some minor cleansing has been made to this quotation to improve readability).
In the Interest of K.S., filed by the Court of Appeals of Iowa.on April 11, 2012, involved a posting on the Father’s Facebook Wall by the Mother prompting an impromptu home visit by a service provider.
The case is illustrative of a number of points, not the least of which is that CPS caseworkers and service providers can and do monitor Facebook postings and other social media, looking to gather evidence against parents. In this case, the Facebook posting was claimed to have been a violation of a “no-contact order” that had been put into effect.
This case is also illustrative of one other key point: Parents may be their own worst enemies when facing termination of their parental rights. Many a family advocate has expressed the sheer frustration of helping a parent to regain custody, only to have the entire case fall apart because the parent tested positive for marijuana or some such thing at a critical point in the proceedings.
In B.H.1, a minor, v. Arkansas Department Of Human Services And B.H.2, a minor, Appellees, the Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division III, upheld the termination of a Mother’s rights on September 26, 2012, taking note that she had “testified at the termination hearing that she had recently been staying overnight with an older male friend of her father’s. According to appellant, the two were just friends. She did confirm, however, that she posted a picture of the two of them on Facebook.” While this was not the sole basis for termination, it certainly did not help her case.
In In the Interest of A.D.W., A.L.W., and X.M.M., Minor Children (2012), the Court of Appeals of Iowa devoted considerable discussion to its opinion regarding the admissibility, reliability, and relevance of photographs obtained from a Mother’s Facebook page. Her parental rights were at issue, yet she had photos of marijuana plants posted on Facebook with her privacy settings set wide open for public viewing.
Melissa’s page is not private. Upon clicking on a photo bucket with pictures of the children there are also several photos that include what appears to be a marijuana growing operation. Melissa in court admitted to this being her Facebook page. This speaks to her inability to maintain a safe home. Melissa’s judgment is clearly not what it used to be and she is obviously not using good judgment in regard to what she has offered to the world on her FaceBook page.
While the Court of Appeals held that the probable value of the photographs was questionable under the circumstances, it nevertheless found other grounds to terminate parental rights, leaving the issues of admissibility, reliability, and relevance for the most part unresolved.
Also from Iowa, In the interest of K.B., J.B., E.M., and Q.G., a case filed on October 17, 2012,.the Court managed to terminate the parental rights of three fathers in one fell swoop.
One of the fathers admitted using methamphetamine “because of the stress the DHS case had caused him,” “the stress of his wife leaving him,” and lack of contact with his kids. That much I can believe wholeheartedly. However, just weeks before the termination hearing, he tested positive for marijuana and methamphetamine. Thus, Father number one struck out.
DHR made a determination in September 2011 to suspend the mother’s unsupervised visitation with the child and to remove K.B. from the mother’s home based primarily on the photograph of the child making a gesture, known colloquially as “flipping the bird,” that had appeared on the mother’s Facebook page, which, according to Hampton, DHR had characterized as poor parenting. It was undisputed that that photograph had been placed on the mother’s Facebook page by T., a friend of the mother’s, and that the mother did not have the means or knowledge to remove the photograph.
The social worker spoke with the mother, who admitted that she occasionally had a drink of wine or beer, and that she believed she was allowed to do so because her counselor told her that she did not have a problem with alcohol. Naturally, these concerns were raised during a review hearing. While the record does not reflect that this issue necessarily became a particular concern, her parental rights were ultimately terminated.
Our next foray into California’s child welfare and legal systems involves In re K. F. et al., by El Dorado County Department Of Human Services v. N. M (2010). Among the critical points addressed on appeal was that the mother had “denied posting a statement on Facebook attributed to her that claimed CPS had violated her rights and father’s rights; she said it must have been written by an acquaintance who ran a group called ‘Tahoe Victims of CPS.'” Regardless of whether she herself had written the posting, or whether an acquaintance had actually done so, the posting was there for all to see in the juvenile court, and the damage was done.
Molly was upset and posted some negative things about appellant on Facebook when she got home from school. These posts included, “Vinny [C.], you do not scare me. I do not have to put you on the birth certificate. So if you want to take my baby then you’ll have to establish paternity first and that won’t be cheap. Besides, the Court doesn’t have to grant you the right to see your baby, so ha, ha, ha, you think you’ve got me beat, boy, you have another thing coming.” By October 21, appellant had already unfriended Molly, so she did not intend these posts to communicate anything to appellant, only to express herself. She did not think the friends who saw these posts would tell appellant about them.
Her visitation has been pitiful. The infrequent visits have averaged one hour or less. While visiting she has often spent time texting and has at times been under the influence of drugs. There have always been excuses why she could not make visitations but none are credible. She seems to have been able to go other places. She posted pictures on Facebook with boyfriends at the mall. Respondent’s focus is on herself and not the subject child. The Respondent continues to be in denial. She is a person who life has not treated well, but she simply cannot alter her conduct for any substantial period of time.
The Court noted that the post was published less than a month before the trial, after the psychiatric evaluation, and soon after the Mother had been placed on prescription medication regarding her mental health.
The careerbuilder.com site repeatedly emphasizes that job applicants are often “their own worst enemies” when it comes to the information that they post online on social networking sites. If you are not currently the subject of an open investigation of any variety, learn how to adjust the security settings on your social media sites immediately. If you are already the subject of an investigation, do not post anything that could serve to make matters any worse than they are already. Be sure that you know who you are in communication with, and take your discussions in support forums to a more private venue.
Above all else, if you find yourself with an overwhelming desire to leap across the bench and knock some sense into a judge, rest assured that every family advocate has had that feeling at one point or another in their non-paying career. To the best of my knowledge, none have acted on the impulse, and none have disclosed that particular urge in a public forum.
1. The Fifth Amendment may be a moot point since the Supreme Court’s decision in Salinas v. Texas, prior to which the Supreme Court had plainly held that the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination prohibited the State from commenting on the invocation of that right as evidence of the defendant’s guilt. Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 (1965). The Court in Griffin expressly held that “the Fifth Amendment, in its direct application to the Federal Government, and in its bearing on the States by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids either comment by the prosecution on the accused’s silence or instructions by the court that such silence is evidence of guilt.” In Chapman v. California, 386 US 18 (1967) the Court reversed and remanded a case in which both the judge and prosecutor had instructed the jury such that the defendants’ silence could likely be used against him infer guilt. The Court noted that “it is completely impossible for us to say that the State has demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the prosecutor’s comments and the trial judge’s instruction did not contribute to petitioners’ convictions.” Id., at 26. The Court held that “before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” The Court ultimately concluded that the petitioners were “entitled to a trial free from the pressure of unconstitutional inferences.” Id. Nor did the Supreme Court differentiate between the Constitutional privileges protected by this principle. See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 US 279, 310 (1991) (noting that the evidentiary impact of an involuntary confession “is indistinguishable from that of a confession obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment—of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment—or of a prosecutor’s improper comment on a defendant’s silence at trial in violation of the Fifth Amendment”).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.