Cops Immune for Child Welfare Check

Courthouse News – by Nick McCann

(CN) – Police officers in an Oregon town who removed children from a couple’s home without a court order have immunity from the family’s civil rights claims, a Ninth Circuit panel held.

The action stemmed from a February 2010 incident where police in Stayton, Oregon, responded to a request for a welfare check on two children aged two and five.  

Stayton is a town in Marion County, about 12 miles southeast of Salem.

The children’s parents, Jessica Borchers and Stephen Sjurset, had previously been convicted of endangering the welfare of a minor after the mother tested positive for methamphetamine while pregnant. The older child had temporarily been placed in foster care as a result.

A case worker with Department of Human Services called the Stayton Police Department after she was unable to reach the parents.

On a Saturday night, three Stayton Police officers went to the couple’s house, and Sjurset would not let the officers inside without a warrant.

The officers called DHS, who dispatched a social worker to the house. Because it was a Saturday, DHS could not get a court order authorizing the removal of the children.

Social worker Mary Anne Miller called her supervisor and made the decision to take the children into protective custody.

Sjurset sued the city of Stayton, the DHS officials, and the police officers for civil rights violations, on behalf of himself and his children.

A district court judge found in favor of the city and the DHS officials, but denied immunity to the officers, the social worker and her supervisor.

The officers appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and last week a three-judge panel ruled that they acted reasonably in removing the children from the home.

Circuit Judge Ronald Lee Gilman noted that the officers “made no independent decisions regarding protective custody and merely assisted DHS in securing the children.”

“We thus decline to find that the Stayton officers were either plainly incompetent or that they knowingly violated the law when they relied on DHS’ determination that Sjurset’s children were in imminent danger,” Gilman wrote for the panel.

“To hold otherwise would place the Stayton officers in a Catch-22 situation: either challenge DHS’ determination, which could potentially endanger the children’s safety and put the officers at risk of liability or discipline if harm had befallen the children, or carry out DHS’ instructions in the absence of a court order at the risk of being sued for violating the children’s and the parents’ constitutional rights,” the judge continued.

“The correct answer would not be obvious to a reasonable officer.”

The panel reversed the district court’s decision regarding the officers’ immunity.
Circuit Judges Ferdinand F. Fernandez and Carlos T. Bea joined in Gilman’s opinion.  

http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/12/07/cops-immune-for-child-welfare-check.htm

8 thoughts on “Cops Immune for Child Welfare Check

  1. Apparently, if you work for the State, there is an excuse for everything. Kidnapping, assault, rape and murder are perfectly legal if you are a government employee.

    1. These Communist Cops will and are, getting away with kidnapping, assault, rape and murder……shame on us!

  2. Where I live we have corporations like WALMART and THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO. Neither one has any authority to intrude into your home and take anything. A Judge is the manager, just like the manager at WALMART. They have nothing at all to do with the constitution and the Bill of rights except to use them for their own defense as they claim to be the PEOPLE. If you can sort it all out it’s pretty easy to claim freeman or enlightened man status and tell them to FO. I did it, it’s a matter of ignorance vs knowledge. The facts are clear all you have to do is call them out on all their lies. I called the Judge and prosecutors liars, I called their court a clown court of jesters, I told the clerk in no uncertain terms that I am not a source for revenue. I NEVER once agreed with the prosecutor, I just kept saying no… I finally got out of there with $85 in court costs for Driving on suspended DL, no insurance and no registration and faulty tail lights. That’s a win. You have to go in and be prepared for jail, caving to lying welfare dependent court employees is not going to cut it.

    1. Or make a stand at your own home if that’s what it comes to. What kind of do nothing is going to let some corporate welfare collectors take their kids so they can justify more of their welfare collecting?!? That’s madness.

  3. Communist entity and welfare collecting “Social worker Mary Anne Miller called her supervisor (who has supreme authority over all I guess) and made the decision to take the children into protective custody.”
    She should be dodging bullets while going about her welfare collection justification. With Communists it’s always about the children. Funny they abort all of their own and then want to tell you how to raise yours.

  4. “The officers called DHS, who dispatched a social worker to the house. Because it was a Saturday, DHS could not get a court order authorizing the removal of the children.”
    Note that Corporations only operate during working hours to serve the corporate interests. Free enterprise has to work all the time because it’s welfare free. People really need to develop an intense hate for these parasites. Thinking of them as people won’t cut it any longer.

  5. A district court judge found in favor of the city and the DHS officials, but denied immunity to the officers, the social worker and her supervisor.
    This is a member of the same corporation, a BAR traitor no doubt, finding in FAVOR of their own corporations employees! They needed a Peoples Court Judge, not a BAR traitor who’s ONLY duty is the transfer of your property to the CROWN CORPS. They make it confusing but it’s really not that hard to understand. You are a freeman or a citizen slave. Don’t let slaves drag you into it with them. Look up the lost 13th amendment that prohibits BAR traitors from serving in public office. You are expected to follow every corportate dictate (over 2,000,000) while they ignore real law!!!!

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*