Defending Against False Accusations of Abuse Defending against false allegations requires a minimum of one person who actually believes that the accusers are lying.

First, we must identify the complications associated with false allegations:

1. People are more inclined to sympathize with a person claiming to be a victim without questioning.

2. People are likely to rushing to a judgment of hatred against the falsely accused without questioning.

3. The false accusers plan their plot. They don't make their case straight from the nowhere.

3.1. They set a scene likely to create probable grounds. 3.2. They choose a communication channel likely to add momentum to their case.

3.3. They may avoid reporting to police directly to avoid questioning and get the police persuade them to tell the story as opposed to them pressuring the police to buy it.

3.4. The police will do everything they can to support the case, including outright distortions of your response, torture. 3.5. Your lawyer is a crimal defense lawyer, so at least 80% of his clients are criminals who are taught to deny everything and leave it to the complainants to prove their case.

3.6. Some criminals may be sent to track you down and have a means of getting your personal information or anything that may suggest credibility to their further false claims of criminal behavior by you.

3.7. There is incentive, be it monetary, pardon for petty offenses or other for "giving information to the police leading to an arrest and or conviction" so people we make up all forms of things about you.

3.8. You may be open to direct abuse by anyone, including your employers, doctors, etc.

3.9. Their defense, "when you show your face to the police they will arrest you and throw you into a jail together with criminals".

3.10 Once you are from jail, that's all they need to call you a criminal whether you have been there for one hour or 24hours.

The list is endless. As soon as you hear about the allegations, say NO and stop talking about anything to anyone. It is very difficult, people will start by saying, we know they are lying, don't talk. Talk to someone you trust and find good lawyer who believes you. Press for investigations against the "accuser."

More input from other contributors:

There really is no tried and true defense against these allegations. I spent time in prison for a false accusation made 17 years ago by a 17 yr old, and have just lost my fiance due to his grown children's discovery of my criminal background. He has known everything for 13 years and believes in my innocence, but they don't want him to marry "someone like that and ruin their future" and swear to cut him out of their lives entirely if he follows through with the marriage. There is no real defense against these accusatons. People will believe what they choose, and litle of what they believe will actually revolve around guilt or innocence, but rather, their personal attitudes toward abuse. It's always easier to believe someone is guilty and condemn them than it is to go to the trouble to believe in their innocence and the shortcomings of our justice system.

The best defense is always taking the offensive, especially in the legal arena. The person(s) or agency making the allegations should be forced to come forward with substantiated facts proving their claim. If one is not up to forcing the issue themselves they should retain legal counsel or at the very least get legal advice from a qualified attorney; one who practices in the field of domestic and/or child abuse issues. The accused should try to document his or her whereabouts on dates that the alleged abuse occurred, including person he or she may have spoken with in person or by phone, who can if necessary testify of his presence at said time. Things such as doctor appointments, being at work, even the weather conditions, things that might seem insignificant in the present, may be extremely important if it becomes necessary to present a defense against criminal charges and/or civil action.

Termination of parent-child relationship is proper when child's emotional and physical development is threatened, and court need not wait until child is irreversibly harmed such that his physical, mental and social development is permanently impaired before terminating relationship. West's A.I.C. 31-6-5-4(c). In re A.A.C., 682 N.E.2d 542 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).

Clear and convincing evidence standard: County department of social services failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence either that it discharged its statutory duty to exercise diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, or that mother failed to maintain contact with or plan for the child's future; mother was Polish immigrant, and department of social services failed to arrange interpreter services which would have allowed mother to communicate with child, and failed to ensure that mother maintained enrollment in English classes or to provide mother with Polish-speaking therapist. New York Social Services Law § 384-b7(a). In re Richard W, 696 N.Y.S.2d 298 (App. Div. 3d Dep't 1999); West's Key Number Digest, Infants 156.

For parent-child relationship to be terminated, it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence that parent has knowingly endangered physical or emotional well being of child and that termination of parent-child relationship is in best interest of child; parent's religious beliefs, teachings, and practice, in and of themselves, are not grounds for terminating parental rights, unless teachings and practices of beliefs are illegal, immoral, or demonstrably harmful to child; clear and convincing evidence supported termination of mother's parental rights for failing to give seizure medication to one child, hitting one child to point of bruising him, and disappearing for at least a year; evidence indicated that one child suffered from past physical and sexual abuse, and caseworkers testified that termination was in best interest of children. Maltos v Texas Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs. (1996, Tex App San Antonio) 937 SW2d 560.

Once trial court has found that there has been an incident of serious child abuse, it is incumbent upon trial court to enter sufficiently detailed findings of fact explaining why a parent's rights are nonetheless to be preserved. U.C.A.1953, 78-3a-407; 78-3a-408 (1995). State in Interest of M.C., 940 P.2d 1229 (Utah Ct. App. 1997).

An order terminating parental rights will stand only if it is found that there is no viable alternative to termination of parental rights. When acting on a nonparent's petition to terminate parental rights, court must find (1) that the child is dependent, and (2) that there exists no viable alternative to termination and here, second prong of this test was not addressed. G.D.M. v. State, 655 So2d 1020 (Ala Civ App 1995).

The decision to terminate parental rights involves a two-step process: first, the court must determine whether there is present clear and convincing evidence of parental misconduct or inability; second, if the court so finds, the court then considers whether termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child, after considering the child's physical, mental, emotional, and moral condition and needs, including the need for a secure and stable home. Georgia Code § 15-11-81(a, b). In re L.H., 236 Ga. App. 132, 511 S.E.2d 253 (1999); West's Key Number Digest, Infants 178.

Constitutional challenge to statute: Section of Adoption Act permitting termination of parental rights based upon finding of "other neglect of or misconduct toward the child" defined proscribed conduct in manner encouraging arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, as element of void-for-vagueness analysis; lack of definitions of "neglect" and "misconduct" afforded state's attorneys unfettered latitude, at least in the first instance, to define such terms and to seek termination of parental rights based thereon. 750 Illinois Compiled Statutes Annotated 50/1(D)(h). In re D.F., 321 Ill. App. 3d 211, 254 Ill. Dec. 825, 748 N.E.2d 271 (4th Dist. 2001), appeal allowed, 195 Ill. 2d 579, 258 Ill. Dec. 94, 755 N.E.2d 477 (2001); West's Key Number Digest, Constitutional Law 274(5).

Trial court properly considered 14-year-old child's preference to be reunited with his mother and with his siblings' father in proceeding in which court issued order terminating mother's parental rights; court stated its belief that child's dreams for his future would not survive return to mother's care and stated that, although child would experience sadness and grief over loss of mother as active participant in his life, termination of mother's parental rights would allow child to enjoy remaining years of childhood without acting as surrogate parent to his siblings. Matter of Welfare of D.J.N., 568 N.W.2d 170 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997).