zlacker

>>rossan+(OP)
> I couldn’t live with this uncertainty any longer. But first, I had to get my son back. As a precautionary measure, the hospital followed mandatory reporting statutes and my wife and I temporarily lost custody of David. Thanks to our incredibly effective defense lawyer, we were cleared of all charges within two months, during which we stayed at the hospital 24/7 with David until we sorted out the legal procedures. I would discover much later that we actually had been lucky to be allowed to do this, as most parents are abruptly separated from their babies for months after reporting takes place.

This sounds very much like presumed guilt rather than presumed innocence.

>>sneak+KD4
Is the criminal justice system in France based on a presumption of innonce?

>>Seattl+s55
Is that a serious question? Yes, the French justice system is based on a presumption of innocence, just like any other functioning democratic nation. It is a basic human right under the UN charter after all.

>>armada+Aa5
You say that, but this doesn't seem like presumption of innocence. A country with a presumption of innocence doesn't take your child away from you without trial.

>>mlindn+Ef5
A presumption of innocence doesn't mean that a trial is needed before (what are supposed to be) basic safety measures.

Judges can issue preliminary injunctions before trial in all places in the world. A justice system that can't take any coercive action until the end of a trial would simply not function.

In particular though, cases like this aren't even related to the presumption of innocence. The state believes that the child has suffered harm, so a judge takes them in protective custody. Who is harming the child remains to be determined, but taking the child into custody is supposed to protect the child immediately.

Of course, this can be, like in this case, wrongly applied to disastrous effects. But it has also saved many children from abusive parents, where leaving them without state protection for years while the trial advances would have scarred them permanently or killed them.

>>tsimio+gl5
> Of course, this can be, like in this case, wrongly applied to disastrous effects. But it has also saved many children from abusive parents

So what is the relative frequency of these two outcomes? You can't ignore the wrong applications; if they outnumber the proper ones, then the system is doing more harm than good.