While the author agrees with the Court's ruling that a parent cannot invoke his fifth amendment privilege under these circumstances, she maintains that the Court did not make a strong enough statement against child abuse. By not expressing how attenuated the defendant's claim is compared to previous precedent and by not articulating that production of the child was not testimonial, the Court paved the way for future, similar claims. In this case, the Supreme Court relied on the definition of "noncriminal regulatory regime" to justify the court order. The Supreme Court should also have used this case to incorporate a distinct balancing test which could have stressed that the rights of an abused child may outweigh the rights of the abuser facing criminal charges. 186 notes