Opinion ID: 1879539
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Eldridge Factors and the Present Case

Text: In the present case, balancing of the Eldridge factors demonstrates that a preponderance standard is constitutionally intolerable. A parent's interest in a relationship with his or her child is a basic human right. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942). The nature of the private interest threatened by a proceeding under La.Rev.Stat. 9:364 D is the allegedly abusive parent's total loss not only of all visitation rights, but also of all contact of any kind with his or her child. Thus, there is a great deal of similarity between the private interest in this case and the one in the Santosky case. The major difference, of course, is the permanency of the threatened loss. Here, there is a permanent loss of all rights to unsupervised visitation, to overnight visitation even if supervised, and to visitation in the home of the allegedly abusive parent. Moreover, the loss of any chance for supervised visitation is of an uncertain duration which may be beyond the control of the parent. The parent, in addition to proving that supervised visitation is in the child's best interest, must also prove successful completion of a treatment program [7] to the judge. But, as the father argues, many treatment programs refuse to accept persons who do not first admit guilt, a fact this father continues to deny. [8] Under such circumstances, an accurate determination of guilt in the factfinding phase is critically important. The primary private interest involvedthe parent's right to a family relationship with his or her childis an interest that far surpasses any property rights. Santosky, 455 U.S. at 758-59, 102 S.Ct. at 1398-99. As noted above in the discussion of the Santosky decision, the Court has previously required an elevated standard of proof in government-initiated proceedings involving juvenile delinquency, In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970); civil commitment, Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979); deportation, Woodby v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 385 U.S. 276, 87 S.Ct. 483, 17 L.Ed.2d 362 (1966); and denaturalization, Chaunt v. United States, 364 U.S. 350, 81 S.Ct. 147, 5 L.Ed.2d 120 (1960). Here, the government-initiated proceeding threatens the father with a private interest loss that is at least of equal importance to those in the cited cases and with at least partially (and possibly totally) permanent effects. Admittedly, the Legislature has a legitimate interest in providing for limitation or even termination of parental rights under appropriate circumstances. See La.Ch.Code arts. 1004, 1015. However, under the Children's Code, termination based on criminal conduct involving sexual abuse can only be imposed after proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and termination based on any other statutory grounds can only be imposed after proof of guilt by clear and convincing evidence, in an adversary proceeding that affords procedural due process. La.Ch.Code art. 1035. By the same token, the legislative sanction in Subsection 364 D that significantly affects the parent's private interest can only operate after the requirements of procedural due process have been met. The child, as well as the custodial parent, also have vital private interests in the outcome of the proceeding. But, as the Court observed in Santosky, the focus in the factfinding stage (at which the preponderance standard is being challenged) is primarily on the parent. In the factfinding stage of a Subsection 364 D proceeding, the adversaries are the state and the allegedly abusive parent. Until the state proves sexual abuse in a factfinding hearing that provides procedural due process, the parent and the child presumably have a shared interest in preventing the erroneous destruction of the family relationship. We therefore conclude that the factors relating to the private interest affected by the proceeding weigh heavily in favor of a heightened standard of proof. The second Eldridge factor involves allocation of the risk of an erroneous factfinding. The preponderance standard allocates the risk of error almost evenly (fifty-one percent minimum). Yet the function of a standard of proof is to instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication. Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 1808, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979), quoting In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 370, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1076, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). Society obviously is more greatly concerned over error in an action seeking deprivation of parental rights than in a civil action to collect money damages. Moreover, the court's finding of sexual abuse of the child by the parent in a Subsection 364 D proceeding, when the party with vastly greater resources has proved guilt by a mere preponderance of the generally subjective evidence, absolutely destroys many of the parent's rights and totally removes the discretion of the judge in fixing such rights. [9] On the other hand, if the court fails to find sexual abuse, the trial judge under the Children's Code can still order extremely limited supervised visitation (as was done in this case) or suspend visitation temporarily, or take other steps to protect adequately the welfare of the child and the interest of the custodial parent. Thus, the consequence of a factfinding error that results in denying the absolute prohibition against visitation and contact is simply a continuation of the previous family relationship between parent and child (a relationship in which the judge under the Children's Code can adequately protect the welfare of the child when necessary under the circumstances). However, the consequence of a factfinding error that results in deprivation of the parent's visitation and contact rights with his or her child, part permanent and part temporary, is the destruction of all or almost all of the existing family relationship that may be worth preserving. This disparity of consequences militates against a standard of proof in which the risk of factfinding error is allocated almost evenly between the state and the parent, and strongly tips the balance in favor of a standard of proof that allocates a higher burden to the state and correspondingly increases the degree of confidence in the correctness of the factfinding process. One can hardly disagree with the laudable governmental purpose of Subsection 364 D to protect the welfare of abused children or with the proposition that a parent who sexually abuses his or her child should be dealt with as harshly as reasonably necessary to protect the paramount welfare of the child. But the issue at the factfinding stage is whether the abuse in fact occurred, and not whether a parent who has been proved guilty of abuse under a constitutionally adequate standard should be harshly punished. The risk of error in a factual finding of abuse, because of the tremendously uneven consequences resulting from the error, cannot constitutionally be distributed almost evenly between the parties. As in juvenile delinquency, civil commitment, deportation and denaturalization proceedings, due process requires a higher degree of confidence in the correctness of the factfinding process in a Subsection 364 D proceeding. The final Eldridge factor involves the countervailing governmental interest in use of the procedure. The significant governmental interest in protecting the child's welfare is not in any way deprecated by the application of the higher standard of proof, because alternate protective procedures are readily available. Indeed, the government interest flows in favor of preserving a family relationship that presumably is worth preserving until a reason for contrary action is constitutionally established. The state has almost as great an interest in preserving worthwhile family relationships as it has in terminating family relationships when the parent cannot or will not behave appropriately in the relationship. The government's parens patriae interest therefore is served by protecting against erroneous factual determinations of guilt. Finally, neither the state nor the mother has shown that the higher standard of proof necessary to reduce the risk of error in the factfinding process will substantially affect the state's administrative or financial burdens in the proceeding. We therefore conclude that La.Rev.Stat. 9:364 D's failure to require proof of sexual abuse of the child by the parent in a factfinding hearing by clear and convincing evidence renders the statute unconstitutional as violative of the parent's procedural due process rights. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court declaring La.Rev.Stat. 9:364 D unconstitutional is affirmed. DENNIS, J., assigns additional reasons. HALL, J., dissents for the reasons assigned in the original opinion. KIMBALL, J., dissents.