How California Takes Children Without Ever Finding Parents Guilty

Parents in “family” courts are essentially treated as if they were found guilty—just under an extremely low standard of evidence. As retired Santa Clara County family‑court judge Leslie Nichols explained: “The issues can all be adjudicated here under a different standard of proof as relevant to the welfare of the children.” He contrasted this with criminal, civil, traffic, and small‑claims courts, all of which require much higher standards of proof—such as beyond a reasonable doubt or preponderance of the evidence.  It is much more difficult to find someone responsible in these courts, including small-claims courts, without solid evidence.

However, in family and juvenile dependency courts—arguably the most consequential courts in the nation—Judge Nichols emphasized that the inquiry is “not guilt, but ‘Best Interest of the Child.’” Under this vague and highly subjective standard, almost anything can be used as evidence. Hearsay becomes routine. In contract, in small claims court, a notice is required before hearsay can be used against you. 

The “family” court judges can rely on nearly any statement, document, or allegation, regardless of reliability to use against you as evidence. 

The “Best Interest of the Child” standard is vague, overbroad, and constitutionally problematic. Laws that restrict fundamental rights cannot be vague or all‑encompassing. This standard does not meet the strict‑scrutiny requirement that applies when constitutional rights—such as the right to family integrity—are at stake. U

In “family” court – under this low threshold – hearsay, false accusations, perjury, altered documents, third‑party statements from people who never appear in court, and expert reports from individuals who never testify can all be used as the only evidence against a parent.

RaiseYourRights has opposed federal proposals such as the “Keep Families Together Act,” introduced in 2018, which sought to incorporate California’s “Best Interest of the Child” standard into federal law. The bill stated that the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and Health and Human Services could separate a child from a parent or guardian if a state child‑welfare agency or court determined it was in the child’s best interest.  Critics argued that this subjective language could allow state agencies to remove children from parents entering the U.S. based on subjective assessments so low, that an unrelated American caregiver might be “better” than a child’s own parents, regardless of family bonds. Ultimately, this incorrectly named “Keep Families Together Act” was changed into something else and was blocked by a federal judge because the federal government lacked the legal authority to implement it.

Parents in the United States need jury trial rights to prevent family and dependency courts from effectively finding them guilty without meaningful evidence. Supporting RaiseYourRights helps prevent unwarranted governmental interference (UGI) in families and protects the constitutional right to raise one’s own child.