Ner Littner, a prominent Chicago child psychiatrist who testified for the ACLU in the Illinois case, stated in an interview that even the best adjusted child is likely to suffer "upset, sleep difficulties, nightmares, and difficulty eating" after such an experience. Littner indicated that for the more emotionally vulnerable child, the experience can significantly worsen any condition the child may have, and in some cases leave permanent damage.[12]

The potentially devastating impact of these strip searches on children is illustrated by a sobbing 16-year-old girl who was searched in a California Youth Guidance Center.

"Apparently the search involved two men who held her arms while three women conducted the strip search," said San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan.

Since the search, the girl "has been vomiting blood and having nightmares," the girl's mother told reporters.

"She's not a bad kid. She is extremely shy -- won't even wear shorts on the street because she doesn't want her body exposed."

At night, her daughter seemed to be at her worst, her mother said. "She has dreams he is holding her down and sometimes he is chasing her," she said.[13]

In the state of Iowa, the governor rejected a proposal by the Department of Human Services that would authorize social workers to strip-search and photograph school children without their parents knowledge. It was found that the workers had been using this practice without authorization, and wanted to make it legal primarily because of lawsuits by parents.[14]

Evidently, some social workers consider strip-searching of children to be a routine and harmless matter. In Texas, a female social worker took a lunch companion along with her as she conducted a strip search of a teen-aged boy in his school.

If there is one thing that some social workers do better than inflicting trauma on innocent children, it is committing perjury, and this social worker would prove no exception. She denied having taken anyone with her to the school while testifying under oath.

Like Alethea Clark, this family was the victim of multiple false allegations. This was the eighth investigation the family endured at the hands of the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services.[15]

At least a few legislators are beginning to take notice.

In Missouri, during debate surrounding a 1994 bill intended to remove allegations of neglect from the child protective investigations unit, Senator John Russell, R-Lebanon, called for the reactivation of unit in the Department of Public Safety that reviewed improper behavior by its Division of Family Services during investigations of child abuse reports.

Russell told fellow lawmakers of a case in which a caseworker visited a child at her school. The child was called to the principal's office, then taken to another room "where she was stripped to determine if there was any abuse."

"Every senator on this floor knows of a case that merits no investigation by the DFS or anyone else," said Senator Emory Melton, R-Cassville.

The bills sponsor, Joe Moseley, D-Columbia, said he had not personally heard any of the "horror stories" until he filed the bill. Since then, he said, numerous people had written him letters complaining about their treatment at the hands of the agency.[16]

Evidently, the use of this dehumanizing and frightening procedure has extended itself to the private agencies as well. A social worker employed by Catholic Charities in Illinois reportedly disrobed a five-year-old boy and his 6-year-old sister looking for evidence of abuse.

Not only does widespread strip-searching inflict needless trauma on thousands of children who have not been abused, but it very often fails to detect abuse in those who have.

The value of the technique is perhaps best illustrated by the tragic outcome of this case. Finding no evidence of abuse, the caseworker labeled the report as unsubstantiated. A few weeks later, five-year-old Arturo Barrera was dead--thrown to the floor by his mother's boyfriend.[17]

Police have also conducted strip searches of children, in one case entering an apartment late at night to investigate an anonymous tip claiming that a seven-year-old girl had been abused. Upon demanding entry into the apartment, the parent objected and was told no warrant was necessary. The police officers "with no indication that the child was injured . . . stripped and inspected [her] body, ostensibly for marks or injuries. No injuries were found."

On appeal, the officer argued that if social workers are allowed to conduct strip searches as a matter of routine, that a police officer certainly must be allowed as well.

The court, while declining to address the issue of whether social workers are allowed to conduct such strip searches without a search warrant, ruled against the officer, ruling that police officers specifically do not have the right, and that he had violated the constitutional rights of the family.[18]

Thus have we given social workers powers and immunity provisions that far exceed those of the police. They conduct these searches with impunity, systematically abusing hundreds of thousands of children every year in the name of child protection.

Veteran journalist and university professor Richard Wexler recently testified before a Congressional Committee, detailing the widespread prevalence of these techniques:

When the caseworker comes to the door, demands entry, pulls a small child aside and starts asking traumatic questions; when the worker then strip searches the child looking for bruises, how is that erring on the side of the child?

Such strip searches are common practice. In America today, Timothy Mcveigh has more protection against a search of his home or his person, than does an innocent child. The child savers constantly speak of "children's rights," but for some reason, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure never seems to be one of them.