By suggesting that the State may have to grant some sort of immunity to parents in exchange for producing the children, the Supreme Court may have given abusive parents an incentive to hide their children once they have abused them. Furthermore, the State imposes that obligation as part of a broadly directed, noncriminal regulatory regime governing children cared for pursuant to custodial orders. Children may be placed, for example, in foster care, in homes of relatives, or in the care of state officials. Doe, , 1984 Doe I. Quarles, , we recognized a public safety exception to the usual Fifth Amendment rights afforded by Miranda v. There is no indication that she is unable to comply in one way or the other.
Bouknight is presently incarcerated until she either presents her child, Maurice M. Confidentiality and the dangerous patient: Implications of Tarasoff for Psychiatrists and lawyers. In the present case, a citation for civil contempt in order to obtain the production of a child such as Maurice, or knowledge about his whereabouts, is not essentially criminal in nature and aims primarily at securing the safety of the child. Nurses and others observing Maurice's mother at the hospital reported her unusual conduct with the child, including shaking him and dropping him into his crib when he was in a cast. The Court has on several occasions recognized that the Fifth Amendment privilege may not be invoked to resist compliance with a regulatory regime constructed to effect the State's public purposes unrelated to the enforcement of its criminal laws. The Court of Appeals of Maryland vacated the Juvenile Court's judgment upholding the contempt order.
See also 3 Code of Md. Here, Maurice's care and safety became the particular object of the State's regulatory interest once the Juvenile Court adjudicated him a child in need of assistance. The State's goal of protecting children from abusive environments through its juvenile welfare system cannot be separated from criminal provisions that serve the same goal. The Court's characterization of Maryland's system is dubious, and highlights the flaws inherent in the Court's formulation of the appropriate Fifth Amendment inquiry. Bouknight's attorney signed the order, and Bouknight in a separate form set forth her agreement to each term. Finally, production in the vast majority of cases will embody no incriminating testimony, even if in particular cases the act of production may incriminate the custodian through an assertion of possession, the existence, or the identity of the child. Bouknight's attorney signed the order, and Bouknight in a separate form set forth her agreement to each term.
Subversive Activities Control Board, 382 U. If such a grant of immunity has been possible since July 1989 and the State has refused to invoke it so that it can litigate Bouknight's claim of privilege, I have difficulty believing that the State is sincere in its protestations of concern for Maurice's well-being. This case provides an illustration: concern for the child's safety underlay the efforts to gain access to and then compel production of Maurice. Bouknight therefore cannot claim the privilege based upon anything that examination of Maurice might reveal, nor can she assert the privilege upon the theory that compliance would assert that the child produced is in fact Maurice a fact the State could readily establish, rendering any testimony regarding existence or authenticity insufficiently incriminating, see Fisher, supra, at 411, 96 S. In another case, Chrite v.
Regents of University of California, 17 Cal. X rays disclosed that the child had previously suffered multiple fractures of various other major bones. But a person may not claim the Amendment's protections based upon the incrimination that may result from the contents or nature of the thing demanded. In these circumstances, the potentially incriminating aspects to Bouknight's act of production are undoubtedly significant. We hold that she may not.
The regulations embodied in the juvenile welfare statute are intimately related to the enforcement of state criminal statutes prohibiting child abuse, Md. The Court's first line of reasoning turns on its view that Bouknight has agreed to exercise on behalf of the State certain custodial obligations with respect to her son, obligations that the Court analogizes to those of a custodian of the records of a collective entity. §§ 3-801 e , 3-804 a Supp. It declared that the therapist has the duty to care and to warn Tarasoff of the imminent harm on her life. Neither of the reasons the Court articulates to support its refusal to permit respondent to invoke her constitutional privilege justifies its decision. Several months later, the shelter care order was inexplicably modified to return Maurice to Bouknight's custody temporarily. Accord, Marchetti, supra, , 88 S.
In sum, the privilege against self-incrimination is not an absolute right. This gives the social workers a great burden and responsibility to follow up sharply abused children in foster care or those released under an order of protective supervision. Blackmun: Where is she now? Instead, the ability of a State to provide immunity from criminal prosecution permits it to gather information necessary for civil regulation, while also preserving the integrity of the privilege against self-incrimination. The next day, following another hearing at which Bouknight again declined to produce Maurice, the juvenile court found Bouknight in contempt for failure to produce the child as ordered. Baltimore City Department Of Social Services 2 I note, with both exasperation and skepticism about the bona fide nature of the State's intentions, that the State may be able to grant Bouknight use immunity under a recently enacted immunity statute, even though it has thus far failed to do so. Jacqueline Bouknight is not the agent for an artificial entity that possesses no Fifth Amendment privilege.
This characterization is baffling, both because it is contrary to the facts of this case and because this Court has never relied on such a characterization to override the privilege against self-incrimination except in the context of a claim of privilege by an agent of a collective entity. If the petition is granted, the stay shall remain in effect until the Court disposes of the case or otherwise orders. American Association of Christian Counselors. Finally, production in the vast majority of cases will embody no incriminating testimony. United States, , -487 1951. This approach would target respondent's particular claim of privilege, the precise nature of the testimony sought, and the likelihood of self-incrimination caused by this respondent's compliance. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.