Well, I was thinking of the piece of the 5th amendment that says "No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Well, I was thinking of the piece of the 5th amendment that says "No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". I don't know what you call that clause, but there is definitely such a thing. In my opinion, it's intended to protect against government oppression in the form of taking away things you value. But if you were to include "access to family" on that list, I'd put it about where I'd put "avoidance of bodily injury". Here: "Life, family, liberty, property". That government institutions can so casually disrupt family bonds, either temporarily, permanently, or during a long investigation? It makes a mockery of the protection against government we are supposed to have. They can't search your car without a warrant, but keep your head down or someone might call the CPS and they might arbitrarily decide to TAKE YOU FROM YOUR PARENTS. (And it's silly to bring up a seriously abusive case like Josef Fritzl. The right to exercise your parenting philosophy is like the right to exercise your religion. I want to defend it against busybodies. I even want to defend your ability to hurt people, up to a degree. But there's a limit; we don't tolerate sexual assault in the context of cults, and we shouldn't tolerate it in the context of parenting either. With that said, would I want to limit the state's ability to ACT IMMEDIATELY to separate kids and parents in a seriously and clearly abusive case, in order to offer normal people the protection of due process? Yes, I think I would make that tradeoff. Abuse is rare, and the kid who's lived with the problem for years can manage another six hours while you get your expedited, emergency warrant.)