Allowing social workers and police to break into people's homes and steal their children without a warrant, based only on some baloney a social worker wrote on a piece of paper (violates Fourth Amendment--unreasonable search and seizure, without probable cause or evidence that a crime has taken place.)
Can you provide evidence of where this has actually occurred, and more significantly, that this is something routine in these courts and not isolated instances? I have never seen in the courts of any state where I practice where the courts “allowed” the police and/or social workers to “break into people’s homes and steal their children.” The very language you use colors the discussion. Instead of describing the facts of what happened you are charactering the acts as “breaking in” and “stealing” without offering any support for that. I strongly suspect you are using the inflammatory language that appears on some web sites that are strongly opposed to the current child protection system and parroting those rather than having any real basis for the claim. You cannot simply believe every site you see. Any site that uses inflammatory language like that and that cannot back it up with facts should raise red flags for you. Again, you might be tempted to believe them because their positions more closely match yours, but simply believing something that seems appealing to you does not help you learn anything.
Allowing police to deprive a man of the right to his own home that he paid for, based only on what his wife said, and not allowing the man to have a hearing where he can present evidence and testimony of his own first (violates 14th Amendment, both due process and equal protection of the laws, as the woman gets to stay in the house and he doesn't.)
That’s pretty vague. What exactly are you talking about, i.e. in what circumstances does it occur? Can you provide any evidence that what you describe happens routinely? Can you provide proof that it is only men who are ever excluded from the home (and I can tell you right now that is not the case)? You do understand that in some instances where there is a need for immediate action the police can act and the due process (court hearings, etc) occurs later, right? There is nothing necessarily unconstitutional about that. The details matter.
Not allowing parents whose kids have been seized to know who reported them to CPS and why (violates 6th amendment--right to face accusers.)
The reason for confidentiality of reports to CPS is to prevent retaliation against those reporting to CPS. But even with those statutes, the reports can be made available to parents in some circumstances in child removal proceedings. Again, details matter. Your assertion that it violates the 6th Amendment, however, is wrong on two counts. First, the Sixth Amendment right to confront an accuser only applies in criminal prosecutions. Child removal proceedings are civil actions and thus this right does not apply. Second, the right to confront the accuser means a right to confront (i.e. cross-examine) those who testify against them at the trial. If the person who made the CPS report is not going to testify for the state, there is no need for parent to confront them because that person’s testimony is not being used against them.
Having state laws that say parents whose children have been seized will have a hearing within 72 hours, then saying there's no room on the docket, and dragging it out for months (violates 6th amendment right to a speedy trial.)
That may be a violation of the state law (and again actual details matter, including exactly what the law is in the given state). But once again, you are mistaken in saying that it violates the 6th Amendment. The right to a speedy trial under the 6th Amendment only applies to criminal proceedings, not civil matters. As these proceedings are civil, the constituional right to a speedy trial does not apply to them. Note, too, that quite often the reason that these cases are delayed is because the parent seeks delay to prepare their case and to try to work things out with CPS before going to trial.
Parents in CPS or spousal custody cases are not allowed to tell the news media or post on social media the facts of their case and ask for help, lest they be threatened or jailed (Violates 1st Amendment--freedom of speech.)
Can you provide specific examples of that and, importantly, provide any evidence that this is rountinely done, as you seem to assert? Gag orders are not all that common in the courts in the states in which I practice, including family matters, so at least where I practice your claim is not true.
Allowing hearsay evidence in court (violates 6th Amendment--parents and/or fathers cannot cross-examine hearsay, thereby denying the right to face their accuser(s).)
The Constitution does not expressly bar hearsay evidence. The hearsay rule is a rule of evidence law. Every state has an evidence code, and many of them share similar rules on hearsay (often following the federal rules of evidence). Those rules tend to apply in all the courts in the state except in some states small claims type proceedings are excluded and have simplified rules. Hearsay is not what most of the public thinks it is. While the general rule is that hearsay is not admissible, there are exceptions to that. The rules can get a bit complex, which again most nonlawyers will not understand. The bottom line here is that in no state I'm familiar with is there some special set of evidence rules for family law courts that treat hearsay significantly different than in any other court. So I’m not buying either your claim that hearsay (as that is defined in the law) is treated somehow differently or that the way it is handled violates the Constitution. Perhaps if you provide some details of what kinds of statements are being allowed it would help advance the discusison.
Family courts, under CPS suggestion, order parents to cooperate with CPS and to sign releases of private medical and psychiatric information. They are told if they do not sign they will lose their children (violates 5th Amendment right not to be a witness or have to incriminate oneself.)
I suspect this too is mischaracterized. Where a court has made a finding of abuse or serious neglect of a child, the court will, with input from CPS, often order a plan designed to help cure the abuse or neglect problems. If the parent refuses to go along with that plan then the court may very well terminate the parent’s rights as the parent is not demonstrating that he or she wishes to provide a safe home for their child. There is nothing unconstitutional about that.
As part of an investigation they might ask parents for private medical information, especially the medical information for the kids. Failure to provide that information can have negative consequences in the court proceedings. This is not unique to child removal proceedings. It can occur in any kind of civil case.
Your claim that it violates the Fifth Amendment, however, is once again misplaced. The Fifth Amendment is a testimonial privilege. It permits one to refuse to answer questions if the answer might implicate them in a crime. It does not, however, shield the person from having medical records (or any other kinds of records) created by and held by others used against them since (1) the statements in those medical records are not testimonial statements made by patient; they are the records of the medical professional or facility that treated them and (2) those records are almost never going to implicate a person in a crime.
Allowing CPS to imprison children in state facilities or foster homes where they don't want to be, without good reason (Violates 14th Amendment right to life and liberty that cannot be taken away without due process of law.)
Once again, you are using inflammtory language — imprison — that does not accurately reflect what is going on. Minor children do not have a right to decide where they are going to live. That decision is made in the usual course of things by their parents. No one accuses a parent of imprisoning their kids simply because the kid for whatever reason wants to live someplace else. CPS has to place kids someplace else if the parent’s home is unsafe. This decision is not made without due process of law. I get the impression you are tossing around the term “due process” without knowing what it actually means. Kids are not placed in state facilities or foster homes without there first being a court proceeding — due process — to determine that it is appropriate to do so. Kids may be removed from the home temporarily if the home environment poses a serious risk of harm to the child without first going to court, but then court proceedings are held shortly thereafter. I'm going to bet you do not have any evidence that courts routinely allow kids to be placed into foster homes or state facilities for any significant period of time without there being court proceedings to ensure that it is appropriate.
It is of course possible to find isolated examples where CPS, police, and/or the courts have screwed up and violated the constitution. Do not make the mistake of assuming that because a few such cases exist that it means it happens all the time. It's like running red lights. We know some people do sometimes run a red light. But that fact does not logically allow for a conclusion that all people run red lights or that even most people run red lights. So don’t fall into that logical trap. Some sites out there will point to a few bad cases and then try to use that to imply that those cases are the norm to advance their agenda. You ought to be wary of folks who employ that misuse of logic.