Parental Rights: The Fight of Our Lifetime
Suppose, one day, parents will NOT be allowed to tell their children…
…that they cannot do drugs or be sexually involved as an unmarried teenager?
…that they must attend church with you?
…that they are restricted from certain internet cites and DVD’s for their
protection?
…that you want to know where your child is, who his friends are, and what he
is doing?
Suppose, one day, parents will not be allowed to raise
their children with their values but instead will be restricted by the State?
That day is here.
- In
the early 1980s, a landmark parental rights case reached the Washington
State Supreme Court. The case involved 13-year-old Sheila Marie Sumey, whose
parents were alarmed when they found evidence of their daughter's
participation in illegal drug activity and escalating sexual involvement.
Their response was to act immediately to cut off the negative influences in
their daughter's life by grounding her.
But when Sheila went to her school counselors complaining about her parent's actions, she was advised that she could be liberated from her parents because there was "conflict between parent and child." Listening to the advice she had received, Sheila notified Child Protective Services (CPS) about her situation. She was subsequently removed from her home and placed in foster care.
Her parents, desperate to get their daughter back, challenged the actions of the social workers in court. They lost. Even though the judge found that Sheila's parents had enforced reasonable rules in a proper manner, the state law nevertheless gave CPS the authority to split apart the Sumey family and take Sheila away.
- A
thirteen-year-old boy in Washington State was removed from his parents after
he complained to school counselors that his parents took him to church too
often. His school counselors had encouraged him to call Child Protective
Services with his complaint, which led to his subsequent removal and
placement in foster care. It was only after the parents agreed to a judge's
requirement of less-frequent church attendance that they were able to
recover their son.
- The Wisconsin legislature is
debating this question, “Should public libraries keep a child’s check-out
history secret from his parents or should parents know what books, CDs, and
video tapes their children under the age of 16 checked out of public libraries?
- In New Zealand a 16 year-old girl ran away from home and the parents are trying to find her. The police know where she is but they can’t tell the parents because of “privacy rights of children.”
THE ISSUE
Our role, as parents, is critical to the health and development of our children.
Researchers and scientists have found that children who have parental support
are likely to have better health as adults, tend to earn higher grades, have
better social skills, and are more likely to graduate and go on to
post-secondary education. Teens with involved parents are one-quarter as likely
as teens with "hands-off" parents to smoke, drink, and use drugs.
For years, the Supreme Court has recognized that parents have a fundamental
right to raise their children as they see fit, but that support is being
steadily undermined. Across the country, many judges are beginning to deny
the vital role of parents in the lives of their children. Instead, they
are inserting the government into a "parental" role in a child's life as the
instances cited above demonstrate.
TWO THREATS
First, many U.S. judges are denying parents their rights to raise their
children, either because these rights are not explicitly protected in the U.S.
Constitution or because the judges believe that parental rights should be
subservient to the power of the state.
Not all judges hold a low view of parental rights. Some, like Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, believe that parental rights are among the "inalienable rights" of Americans enumerated in the Declaration of Independence but they are finding it increasingly difficult to rule in favor of parental rights when it is not explicitly included in the language of the Constitution.
In Troxel v. Granville, the last major parental rights case heard by the Supreme Court, Scalia himself voted to deny parental rights the status of an enforceable constitutional right. And other federal court judges are following in his footsteps, citing a mounting belief that no right can be protected by the federal courts unless explicitly stated in the Constitution.
Second, parental rights face the threat of international
law, which assumes that the rights of children must be asserted against the
rights of their parents. Under our Constitution, international treaties - such
as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) - become part of the
"supreme law of the land," allowing the government, not the parent, to determine
what is best for the child and intervene on their behalf.
SOLUTION
If Scalia, who favors parental rights, yet cannot protect parental rights unless
it is explicit language in the Constitution…THEN the surest way to protect
children and their parents from both the threat of judges and the danger of
international law is to pass a U.S. Constitutional
amendment that explicitly places parental rights in the Constitution in
black-and-white. And it can be done. The Constitution has 27 Amendments, the
last one being passed in 1992. Only then can we ensure the next
generation of American parents will enjoy the liberties we now enjoy.
ACTION
Go to www.ParentalRights.org and sign the petition.
ATTEND informational rally to hear:
Michael P. Farris, J.D. |
 |
March 1, 2008 (Saturday) |
|
CONTACT Texas Organizers for ParentalRights.org to help:
Wade / Jessica Hulcy wade@konos.com or queen@airmail.net ; 972-924-2541
Gavino / Ruth Perez gavinoperez@sbcglobal.net ; 210-732-0893
Shopping Cart by NopDesign |:| Site Copyright© KONOS, Inc. 2000 - 2005