IT STARTED WITH A KITTEN
The Stumbos' troubles began on a September morning in 1999 when their then- 2-year-old daughter, Jonie, slipped outside to chase her new kitten. Unfortunately, she had only completed the first half of her morning dressing routine—taking off her p.j.s—before running outside the house. Although an older sibling retrieved her a few minutes later, it was too late. A passerby reported a naked child wandering outside to social services.

Two hours later, a social worker showed up at the Stumbos' door, demanding to enter their home and privately interview each child. At HSLDA's advice, the Stumbos refused.

Despite having no probable cause for entry or private interviews, the Cleveland County Department of Social Services (DSS) convinced a judge to issue a court order forcing the family to comply. At the hearing, the judge refused to allow HSLDA Attorney Scott Somerville to introduce evidence showing that there was no abuse or neglect occurring in the Stumbo household. Instead, completely ignoring the Fourth Amendment issues, the judge limited evidence to the Stumbos' answers to two questions—did the social worker ask to conduct an investigation, and did the parents refuse to permit the investigation?

With the Stumbos in danger of being charged with contempt of the order, HSLDA obtained a temporary stay from the Court of Appeals, giving them time to appeal the order. However, in a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals upheld the order, ruling that an interview of the Stumbo children without their parents' consent would not constitute a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment.

"The court of appeals decision was contrary to many recent decisions," said Mason, "including one by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which specifically held that the Fourth Amendment applies to social worker interviews of children." He pointed out that the dissenting judge, in contrast to the majority opinion-and in agreement with the arguments in HSLDA's brief-also held that the Fourth Amendment did apply.

THE FINAL APPEAL
The Stumbos then appealed to the state supreme court, which heard the case in February 2002. Seventeen months later, the court ruled 7-0 in the Stumbos' favor. The majority opinion held that even if the allegations were completely true, they were not grounds for initiating an investigation. In that opinion, Justice Robert Orr called the Stumbo case "a circumstance that probably happens repeatedly across our state, where a toddler slips out of a house without the awareness of the parent or caregiver-no matter how conscientious or diligent the parent or caregiver might be . . . such a lapse does not in and of itself constitute 'neglect'."

"I was very glad the decision was unanimous," said Mike Farris. "While I originally hoped that all the judges would make a decision based on the Constitution, I was happy to see that the four-judge majority said that some reports just aren't worth investigating at all."