If Your Kids Were Taken by CPS, You Must Use This Case Law

Divorce Matters

Guest Mark Esquibel and I break down the Child Protective Case Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 1999) and how it applies to a case in Los Angeles.

If CPS has taken your kids, this is a must-listen podcast.

Cases Cited Right to Lie case

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dd_8-8IZLP4w%26fbclid%3DIwAR3yO0zfHyDEZpcuIkXXyVlJKjdlSDBBdVmPxs6FjhQP2TsP773VtBVbkkQ&h=AT1nPGryyIGLi5FpxtryUJWVJRoeUygX_MgAmG677zuPawqtanUIJ-LSgds7RujjzzFvGZjxU_LPTOoppHw-5ajgHxa22sxTUcNtgbqdr8CFMBDoV19e2fqo45B0JuP1mws

Case Law - Wallis versus Spencer https://casetext.com/case/wallis-v-spencer?fbclid=IwAR1ahbfePU4uxQhuFNpyTY-fAqxbkJyBs79AQoe4nXOZQHo40dCG5ACP7DA

Dr. Charles Sophy – Starting at minute 24

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fm.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DVxhREF0u1t8%26feature%3Dyoutu.be%26fbclid%3DIwAR1yVBoP1KQaNFYtzZmPnDmbHeIumT1oww7G8D2rX_Yzx-hPN-O0DOWlyhM&h=AT1nPGryyIGLi5FpxtryUJWVJRoeUygX_MgAmG677zuPawqtanUIJ-LSgds7RujjzzFvGZjxU_LPTOoppHw-5ajgHxa22sxTUcNtgbqdr8CFMBDoV19e2fqo45B0JuP1mws

Sean McMIllian is the Attorney on the LA Case

Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Because the swing of every pendulum brings with it potential adverse consequences, it is important to emphasize that in the area of child abuse, as with the investigation and prosecution of all crimes, the state is constrained by the substantive and procedural guarantees of the Constitution. The fact that the suspected crime may be heinous — whether it involves children or adults — does not provide cause for the state to ignore the rights of the accused or any other parties.”)

Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 1999) (“ Escondido police officers, evidently acting on the basis of a non-existent court order, seized the children, aged two and five, placed them in a county-run institution, and several days later, without obtaining judicial authorization and without notifying their parents, took them to a hospital for the performance of highly intrusive anal and vaginal physical examinations. The children were not returned to their parents for approximately two and one-half months. All of this occurred after a mental patient who had a long history of delusional disorders and was confined to a mental institution told her therapist a fantastic tale of Satanic witchcraft within her family and an impending child sacrifice. T”)

The district court initially granted the City's motion for summary judgment on the erroneous theory that the action was collaterally estopped by a preliminary ruling of the juvenile court referee, and we reversed. Subsequently, the district court again granted the City summary judgment, this time on the merits. Again, we reverse.