The way I recall it being presented was, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt includes reasonable doubts about the law," but I don't think you could find that phrase in a Westlaw search.

Unfortunately, I can pretty well guarantee that this legal doctrine won't help parents who are accused under this vague law.  I've been there–way too many court cases defending innocent parents in child abuse cases.  The only precedent that truly explains what happens there can be found in Franz Kafka's "The Trial."

I'm not kidding.

A jury trial in a criminal case in the US would almost certainly result in an acquittal.  Unfortunately for otherwise-good parents, cases involving children in the US almost never go to criminal court.  They are handled as quasi-criminal cases where the safety of the child is paramount.  Althoug we still presume that indicted criminals over here are innocent, there is no such presumption of innocence in a child abuse proceeding–because the parents are not being criminally charged.  The court will decide whether the parents get their children back, not whether the parents go to jail.

Having seen this in practice, I'd love to see the US go back to prosecuting child abuse as a crime.  There are many parents who deserve to be in jail who aren't.  And there are many children in foster care who deserve to be back home.

this is well thought out, and clearly articulated – thank you for sharing it with us

thanks also for your comment on my letter on my blog

we await the government's response