ParentalRights.org » Blog

I am glad that the 3rd Court of Appeals ruled the way that they did. That is a small victory for parental rights!

I sincerely hope that this case in Texas sends a message to the CPS and the like that they cannot and will NOT get away with anything like this again!! The nation is watching them for a change!!!

It is time for ALL parents to stand up against CPS and their bogus claims against parents!!!

And what will we say when one of the girls who has been “reunited” with her parents is married (by arrangement) to a middle-aged man with a few other wives, before she is sixteen?

The problem with cults is that they are secretive, often xenophobic. This makes it exceedingly difficult for investigators to ascertain whether or not the children are in any sort of danger, so the actions of the CPS in this case were very much warranted. It will indeed be shameful if, after all of this, one of those children is abused, or if one of those children will now be denied emancipation *because* of this reunification.

By no means do I defend CPS in all cases, but it seems to be the battle-cry on this site that CPS is the embodiment of evil, yet you ignore the fact that CPS is *necessary*. If there were no CPS, how many more children would remain in abusive situations, or otherwise harmful and/or unhealthy homes?

In this case, CPS was right to remove children from this claustrophobic cult. If the doctrines of the FLDS include polygamy (specifically, polygyny), arranged marriages, and consummation of marriages involving underaged brides, then the adherents of this cult have implicitly admitted that these crimes are premeditated, even if they have not yet occurred.

How shameful if we stand by and allow these children to be so indoctrinated into a cult. How much psychological damage shall we allow them to endure?

And yet you people defend these “parents”.

I don’t understand.

–
Stan

Stan commented:

“I don’t understand.”

It’s simply of matter of DUE PROCESS.

Stan commented:

“…it seems to be the battle-cry on this site that CPS is the embodiment of evil, yet you ignore the fact that CPS is *necessary*.”

parentalrights.org states:

“By placing current Supreme Court doctrine into the express language of the U.S. Constitution, the Parental Rights Amendment will shield the child-parent relationship from government intrusion. It will ensure that parental rights are preserved as a fundamental constitutional right.”

parentalrights.org is taking a stand against “government intrusion” (the violation of Biblical and Constitutional parental rights), NOT against the Biblical and Constitutional necessity and exercise of civil authority, including CPS.

The very fact that parentalrights.org is seeking a lawful solution is a testimony of their confidence in, and recognition of the need for, the proper functioning of our government and governmental authorities.

I recognize all that, but I think that the focus here is too heavily weighted toward the “rights” of the parent — which are not rights at all, but are instead responsibilities and privileges — rather than the rights of the child.

There also seems to be a wanton ignorance regarding the effect such an amendment would have. The vast majority of participants here seem to be Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christians, yet they seem oblivious to the fact that these protections they seek will necessarily also protect various religiously endorsed practices to which they *will* object.

You cannot have it both ways — either all parental “rights” are protected, or all the rights of children are protected. I would highly recommend the latter.

It also seems common on this site to bemoan *any* limitations on parental “rights”, yet I think everyone here agrees that certain limitations are indeed necessary. On the spanking topic, there was heated exchange, with “Lisa” and “DGUOR” bashing “Christe” for recommending alternatives to spanking as a disciplinary agent. The rhetoric of “Lisa” and “DGUOR” was abhorrent. They seemed to think that spanking was not only a “right”, but a requirement. “Christe” offered very reasonable alternatives, and made a strong case that spanking and non-spanking both have positive outcomes, so why insist on spanking?

We accept limits when we recognize child abuse, and legislate against it. We need to recognize that these limits are set to deter would-be abusers from doing so, and to protect their children. While our personal methods of parenting may well be perfectly virtuous, not all parents are so inclined, and by emphasizing the protection of the *parent* over the protection of the *child*, you unwittingly assist abusers, whether you like it or not.

This is my objection to this organization, and no one has yet addressed my concerns. Instead, I am immediately subjected to ad hominem attacks, hand-waving dismissal, and general unwarranted ridicule.

My points are valid. If you can argue against them, please do so. I merely seek to protect children, and I see here a site which seeks to instead protect the parent. If I am so wrong, show me.

–
Stan

Stan commented:

It also seems common on this site to bemoan *any* limitations on parental “rights”, yet I think everyone here agrees that certain limitations are indeed necessary.

It seems to me, as Stan has suggested, that the point of disagreement lies not in in the question of whether or not “certain limitations are indeed necessary” but rather, WHO decides what these limitations should be, and HOW they are enforced.

Stan:

WHO do you suggest should set these limitations?

HOW would you suggest they be reinforced?

STAN,
Children do NOT have rights. They are children. It is up to the parents to raise them as they see fit!

Parents are there to guide, teach, protect, and care for their children. That is a God given right! So, therefore it is up to the parents to make the decisions for their children from birth until 18 years of age.

Yes Stan, there are those few exceptions, where parents are not acting in a reasonable or responsible way, and there are laws already in place to deal with those few.

You Stan, seem to want to believe that all parents are bad, irresponsible, and need government assistance in raising their children. Well, sorry, the good, decent, loving parents do NOT need you nor the government telling us how to raise our children.

As far as the “cult” goes, I agree that it is a very strange religious sect, but they have the right to practice their faith, just as you do and just as I do.

CPS DID NOT have any right to go in and take those 400+ children away from their families. The court has proved that. CPS is a VERY dangerous organization. Maybe you need to do some more homework!

Now, please go back to your leftist blog, I am sure you are missed!

Melinda, with all due respect, I am a parent and as such I qualify to participate here every bit as much as any other participant. I will therefore continue to participate so long as it suits me.

Also, children *DO* have rights. If you prefer to assert otherwise, then you have no right to be a parent. Parents do *NOT* have rights (as parents) — rather, they have responsibilities and obligations, which you may choose to call privileges, but which are *NOT* rights.

I agree that a child’s guardian (be it a biological parent, relative, or any other qualified person) has a responsibility to guide, teach, protect, and care for the children in their home, and I also agree that this therefore means that certain decisions are therefore the guardians’, where the child’s well-being is concerned, but you imply that all decisions in a child’s interest are to be the guardians’, and this is simply untrue.

As to the rights children most certainly have, some of them follow:

1) The right to personal health, including medical care as needed.

2) The right to an education, free from any religious underpinnings.

3) The right to gradual autonomy, in accordance with their growth and maturity, until they reach adulthood.

4) The right to be treated with respect, free from abuse (physical, mental, emotional).

5) The right to live in an environment in which all of these rights are recognized and protected.

In the case of the FLDS sect, at least three of the above have been violated. In other cases I’ve seen, here and elsewhere, further violations of a child’s rights have been violated.

I would love to see this site post an article on the British couple who, being deaf themselves, are petitioning for the “right” to ensure that their forthcoming child is also deaf, through genetic manipulation. Do you support this “right” of the parents?

I would similarly love to see this site post an article on Madeline Kara Neumann (or did one appear, and I missed it?), whose parents exercised their “right” to withhold standard medicine (in her case, an insulin shot) in favor of prayer, and as a result Madiline died. Do you support this “right” of the parents?

My points here have always been that the children *DO* have rights, and that although well-meaning, this site’s petition will do little more than protect parents rather than protect children. I think we all agree that it is the children who need the greater protection. We adults at least have the ability to protect ourselves.

Regarding the CPS, I don’t say that they are the guys in the white hats — I agree that there are a great many crimes committed in their names. It is a bureaucracy, and any such device is destined to have these sorts of errors. It is in dire need of an overhaul, but it’s central premise — the protection of children — is a good one.

The FLDS children, despite this ruling, were indeed *NOT* all returned to their parents — only 12 have been as of this writing — as the CPS has appealed the ruling. I, and the law agrees with me, do not believe that *any* child should be subjected to an environment which promotes — indeed, requires — polygamy, and despite the ills of CPS, the children of such a group will be better off *away* from such a doctrine. If and when the parents (specifically, the mothers) of this group are able to demonstrate that they have recognized that polygamy is wrong, they may have their children returned to them, but as long as they insist that it is their right to raise their children according to their religious beliefs — which run counter to the laws of the land — we cannot allow them to further infringe on the rights of their children.

I don’t know how this is so difficult for you to see, but I hope you do in fact recognize that pronouncing children to be humans without rights, and promoting the “rights” of parents as superior to any rights of children you might concede, you do nothing to help children. You only protect a cycle of abuse, where one exists, and encourage the growth of abuse, where it did not before exist.

–
Stan

Stan, NO ONE is advocating the abuse of a child!

I personally, do not agree with parents witholding life saving medication from their children, and I personally would never do such a thing and my religion does not teach such practices, but I do believe that those parents have every right to practice their faith! We need to protect that right. Parents have the right to raise their children in whatever faith they so choose. That is a constitutional right! (Yes Stan, that would also give wiccans the right to raise their children as wiccans, which I do NOT agree with and I think that, that would constitute abuse! But for your sake Stan, since you LOVE to bring wiccans into it, I thought you ‘d like that) Are you wiccan??

Stan, try to shorten your posts a bit, they are way too long and they seem too filled with leftist propaganda.

My time is valuable and cannot be wasted trying read every single word of your 10- 12 paragraph posts! I have things to do Stan, be respectful of that! You seem like such a caring chap!

So you don’t agree with the withholding of life-saving medicine from children, but you would still protect the “right” of the Neumann parents to allow their daughter to die of a perfectly treatable malady, based on their religious preferences?

How does this differ from manslaughter?

An insulin shot. That’s all. Not experimental medicine, not invasive surgery — a shot.

No, they’d rather pray, and you’d rather help them.

Practicing a particular “faith” is indeed a Constitutional right, but contrary to your opinion raising children in a particular “faith” is *not* constitutionally protected. In fact, that is a major goal of this site, whether stated as such or not.

Instead, the Constitution mandates that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness be available to all, with only such limitations that provide equal protection — that is, one person’s pursuit of happiness cannot infringe upon another person’s liberty. This includes children, and that may very well mean that a parent’s “right” to raising a child to be, say, a practicing cannibal, can and should be denied.

I am *not* saying that you abuse your children, and I recognize that you are against child abuse. That being said, your definition of abuse is different than my own, and whereas you feel that a Wiccan parent raising her child as a fellow Wiccan is abusive, I feel the same way about both Wiccan beliefs and Christianity.

It is not that the child is necessarily abused physically, but emotionally and/or mentally the child is indeed abused. Their knowledge is limited, and they are not able to make an informed decision as to what personal philosophy they should claim.

The point of this aside is that where people disagree as to what is “abuse”, and what is “justified religious practice with regard to child-rearing”, your proposed legislation would protect anyone who termed their behavior as religious in nature. No, you don’t advocate outright child abuse, but you *do* allow it to surreptitiously gain credibility by piggy-backing on your otherwise legitimate proposed amendment.

Because the PRA would define “parental rights”, it would necessarily weaken the rights of children. If I beat my child with a disciplinary rod, even to the point of leaving visible welts or bruises, because I can claim that this practice is endorsed by my religion, the PRA would protect me.

Nevermind the child.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the PRA protect a Muslim parent’s “right” to “circumcise” her daughter?

Wouldn’t it protect a Jehovah’s Witness parent’s “right” to deny his son a blood transfusion following extreme blood loss, as from a car accident?

Wouldn’t it protect the Neumann’s “right” to deny an insulin shot to their diabetic daughter?

And, this one might sting a little…

Wouldn’t it protect a woman’s right to choose, with regard to terminating an unwanted pregnancy?

Remember, *YOU* are the one who asserted that “children do NOT have rights”. Wouldn’t this necessarily include the fetus?

This is my point. This is why I’m here.

I’m trying to show you that while your petition is well-meaning, and none of you support child abuse per se, your petition is a legal trap that will instead prove to protect the very behavior you would prefer to prevent, and by Constitutional Amendment, no less.

If you support the “Pro Life” movement, then shouldn’t you be ardent opponents of the PRA?

Did any of you even think of the actual repurcussions this legislation would have?

–
Stan

Yes Stan, there are going to pitfalls in legislation such as this but I do still firmly hold my position that parents have the constitutional right to practice their chosen faith/religion.

Did the Neumann’s “get away” with what they did under current law??
The answer is NO Stan, they did NOT, so therefore why do you feel the PRA would allow such.

Oh, Stan you have NEVER addressed my question about for which leftist organization you work???

Please tell us Stan. If you have nothing to hide then speak Stan, speak!

A little FYI Stan, I come from a family of 12 lawyers! I am well equipped to do battle!

1. I work for no “leftist organization”. My “work” here is completely free-lance.

2. If your time is so valuable that you can’t be bothered with lengthy posts, then why are you able to submit four different posts — three of which are found in this thread — within a fifteen minute span. Such valuable time, indeed.

3. The Neumanns’ case is pending, and the couple has filed a motion to have the case dismissed, based on “a Wisconsin law that says parents cannot be accused of abuse or neglect of a child if they in good faith selected prayer as a basis of treatment for a disease.” (from marshfieldnewsharold.com) They have been charged with 2nd degree homicide. Their remaining children have not been removed from the home. Anyway, Madeline is still dead, to my knowledge.

4. If you think the Neumann example is just a “pitfall”, then you are truly calloused, but perhaps when your laywer relations confirm to you that passage of this proposed amendment will cement the decision in Roe v. Wade, you will realize the truth in what I say.

–
Stan

Well said, Stan! There’s no way I’d support the proposed amendment.

Still waiting for your answer, Stan.

WHO should be the ultimate authority?

Second question, Stan:

HOW should this authority’s law be enforced?

And, Stan, one more question:

WHO will hold this authority accountable?

Stan, please state your position clearly and concisely.

WHO should be the ultimate authority?

As with everything else in America, the people, through the democratic process, at the hands of elected representatives in Congress, the appointed Justices of the Supreme Court, and the elected Presidents who appoint them.

HOW should this authority’s law be enforced?

By the voice of the concerned citizen, and due process of the law.

WHO will hold this authority accountable?

I don’t understand the question. Your first question was “WHO should be the ultimate authority” — how can an ultimate authority be held accountable?

The people are the ultimate authorities, and therefore the people must hold themselves accountable.

Funny, this isn’t so far off from where we currently stand, and I’m no attorney. If you would prefer, I’m sure I could just as easily come up with a three-sentence proposed Constitutional Amendment, but I prefer something a little less ambiguous. If this idea were fully fleshed out, then it would deserve more than twenty or thirty words to describe it.

Is this clear and concise enough? Do you, like Melinda, assert that “children have NO rights”? Or do you recognize that the care-giver has responsibilities, which are ultimately to protect and guide the child, in accordance with the rights of the child to grow and learn in a healthy, informed home environment, free from abuse, coercion, neglect, mythology, and bigotry?

I *do* recognize as much, and it appalls me that people such as Melinda would deny the fact that children have rights. That I should have to argue against such an absurd and backward point is sickening. It is for this reason that I doubt her sincerity as a “Christian” — if children don’t have rights, then she is by definition Pro Choice. If she is instead Pro Life, then her position is logically inconsistent.

Anyway, I note with alarm the fact that so many posters here seem oblivious to the repercussions of this proposed legislation, and remain willfully ignorant to its legal consequences. If the rights of children are de facto usurped by these new “rights” of parents, then child labor laws become moot, child pornography becomes legalized, abortion becomes protected Constitutionally, and any number of religiously mandated acts toward children become legal as well.

It is for reasons such as this that I so vehemently oppose this legislation, and I hope that any of you who have to this point ignored the negative impacts of the PRA will recognize that yes, this Amendment would indeed provide Constitutional protection for the above crimes (and more), and no, this is not what we really want.

If the backers of the PRA would instead re-write the proposal to *explicitly* identify those actions of parents which are condemnable, while tiptoeing through the rest of the Constitutional provisions, then it is absolutely possible that such a proposed Amendment could pass muster, but as currently written, the PRA is a mighty failure for any human who cares about the well-being of children.

Stan,

Sorry to be on the other side of your issue, but I am thankful for the constitution of this great country. It protects me AND MY CHILDREN from people who want to press their social/political/and religious views on my family.

I don’t agree with the FLDS, but the logic CPS used to dismember their familes could be used on ANY Christian family (read the court docs). Just because we disagree with FLDS, does that give us a right to take their children from them? The appeals court ruled correctly- there was no proof of abuse , and a system of belief does not constitute abuse.

I’ve been following this case closely and it seems alot of people are more disgusted by the actions of the state of Texas then they are by the FLDS lifestyle which they should be.What they did to these people is wrong.

Many criminal statues govern the abuse of children and thats where it should be kept,in a constitutional court with due process protections.

After watching 465 children ripped from their families over rumor,hearsay and dislike of their religion you can’t help but think maybe these witch hunting agencies and kangaroo courts are’nt such a great idea after all.

When they did it to them the last time in 1953 it caused a severe backlash but now their is even more people of all creeds that sympathize with their plight due to their own dealings with cps.This very well could gain momentum.

Mensem:

On the contrary, a system of belief does constitute abuse, in some cases. The obvious position of the prosecution — which is independent of CPS — is that the state has a case, and that the potential for abuse is great enough to warrant removal of the children.

I wonder with some amazement at the number of people here who look at the FLDS situation and cry “How could they take those children from those parents!”, yet virtually no one wonders what it might be like to be a 14-, 15-, 16-, or even 17-year old virgin being presented to a 40-something man with two or three existing wives, with the knowledge that tonight that man is going to have sex with you.

Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the actions of FLDS members did not include sex with underaged girls (a highly dubious assumption, at that), a woman has a right to refuse a suitor, and I don’t think any of us believe for a moment that these girls are truly aware of that right.

It’s not that I dislike their religion, it’s that I loathe the tolerance of statutory rape. I loathe the assertion that these people have a “right” to arrange marriages for their teenage daughters, to men thrice their age, who already have multiple other wives.

If this practice is an official doctrine of their religion, then this religion is incompatible with the American legal system. I don’t dislike their religion, per se, but I detest this practice.

It is one thing for an adult woman to willingly enter into an arranged marriage, including a polygynistic marriage, when she is fully informed of her rights, but it is another thing entirely for a child who has been raised in an exclusive sect, who may or may not be of the legal age of sexual consent, but who is certainly not an adult, to be coerced into participating in this form of rape.

This is why those children should be separated from those parents. They all need extensive “debriefing”, to be aware of the alternatives, and to be aware of the fact that subjecting children to this rite is vile. Well-meaning people are every bit as guilty of atrocities as blatantly evil people. In this case, we have an opportunity to act on our obligation to prevent such atrocities.

–
Stan

Stan,

Thank you for your reply.

“Is this clear and concise enough?”

Yes. Thank you.

“Do you, like Melinda, assert that “children have NO rights”?”

I believe children have God-given rights AND responsibilities.

“Or do you recognize that the care-giver has responsibilities, which are ultimately to protect and guide the child,”

I believe that parents have God-given rights AND responsibilities (including protecting and guiding their child).

To clarify, when I speak of parental rights, and I feel it safe to say that when parentalrights.org speaks of parental rights, I am speaking of the authority that must come with the responsibility of parenthood.

“in accordance with the rights of the child to grow and learn in a healthy, informed home environment, free from abuse, coercion, neglect, mythology, and bigotry?”

I agree with your words, Stan, but I’m sure that you and I would define these words differently.

What do you mean…

By “healthy” do you mean a home free of religious instruction?

By “informed” do you mean a home that teaches evolution as fact?

By “abuse” do you mean a home that adminsiters a calm, measured spanking to a rebellious child?

By “coercion” do you mean a home that requires a child to attend religious services?

By “neglect” do you mean a home that chooses to educate their children at home?

By “mythology” do you mean a home that teaches the Bible or the Torah?

By “bigotry” do you mean a home that teaches homosexuality is a sin?

If so, the same people who established the very democracy that you hold confidence in would have been abusive and negligent parents.

If so, you incriminate this very democracy.

Want proof? Check out the 18th century New England Primer and the 19th century GOVERNMENT SCHOOL McGuffey’s Readers. Check out the definition of “education” in Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary:

“The bringing up, as of a child; instruction; formation of manners. Education comprehends all that series of instruction and discipline which is intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, and form the manners and habits of youth, and fit them for usefulness in their future stations. To give children a good education in manners, art and science, is important; to give them a religious education is indispensable; and an immense responsibility rests on parents and guardians who neglect these duties.”

I challenge you to look into source documents to find out what out what other founders of our nation had to say about the role in religion in the government and the home.

“I *do* recognize as much, and it appalls me that people such as Melinda would deny the fact that children have rights. That I should have to argue against such an absurd and backward point is sickening.”

I could be wrong but perhaps when Melinda said that children have no rights, she meant that children have no authority over their parents.

“It is for this reason that I doubt her sincerity as a “Christian” — if children don’t have rights, then she is by definition Pro Choice. If she is instead Pro Life, then her position is logically inconsistent.”

Your logic is sound but you are not well informed about what Christians believe, at least concerning this subject. Unfortunately, many professing Christians hold to a pro choice position. (Though I am not at all implying that Melinda is one of them).

“Anyway, I note with alarm the fact that so many posters here seem oblivious to the repercussions of this proposed legislation, and remain willfully ignorant to its legal consequences. If the rights of children are de facto usurped by these new “rights” of parents, then child labor laws become moot, child pornography becomes legalized, abortion becomes protected Constitutionally, and any number of religiously mandated acts toward children become legal as well.”

It is for reasons such as this that I so vehemently oppose this legislation, and I hope that any of you who have to this point ignored the negative impacts of the PRA will recognize that yes, this Amendment would indeed provide Constitutional protection for the above crimes (and more), and no, this is not what we really want.”

HOW SO? The board of directors and of parentalrights.org (and many who comment on this site) are intelligent, well-educated and well-informed people. You would have to give a very compelling legal argument to convince me that what you are saying is true.

If you are so confident in your assertions, why not suggest a public debate with Michael Farris?

I just want to say, I see the argument from both sides. I think this is a “fine line” topic.

If children have federally mandated rights, when do these rights begin? Per the US supreme court, Roe V Wade it isn’t before birth.

I live in Texas, I disagree with the polygamy life style and that of the ranch in question, but I also disagree with how my state handled this case.

The call about the abuse was found to be made by a know “prank” caller in California and NOT from anyone within the compound. The children in question did not want to be taken from their home nor from their beliefs, no matter how wrong I think they are.

The world isn’t a perfect place, and it never will be. Our country was founded on specific ideals as written by our founding fathers. You may want to save the children living at the ranch, but what happens when the government decides to save YOUR children from how you are raising them?

Unfortunately, there is no way to save both parents in question (those of the ranch and you/me/us…you just can’t have it both ways. You may not agree with how they live, but they have the right to raise their kids how they wish even if it is discusting to you (and me). I feel for the girls in these sects and I pray for them.

There is a need to educate and inform the women in these sects…but that is a need and not a right to force them into changing their life styles.

Stan,

Quite frankly you sicken me!

When I stated that children have no rights, I meant legal rights as an ADULT would have under current laws!! And, that a childs rights would NOT supercede a parents rights! YOU FOOL!

Are you really that stupid that you couldn’t figure that out?(oh that’s right GOVERNMENT educated, so Iguess you are that stupid!)

You are too obsessed with trying to sound like you know what you are talking about when you do not! You are so obsessed with trying to FORCE everyone to agree with you. Sorry pal, NOT going to happen!!!

Why would any Christian agree with you when you have stated that you dislike Christians and their beliefs???
Tell me Stan, in that liberal loving, utopian world that you live in, do you really believe that Christians are that naive??

Give it up!

NeciaJo,
Read my post to Stan! That should clarify my point about children having no rights!!!

For the record, I am Pro-Life!

I am also Pro-Freedom, Pro-Religion - meaning that all people have the right to practice whatever religion they wish (I am a Christian) and Pro-Parental Rights - meaning that the government should NOT have a say in how I raise my children as long as I am in adherence to current laws!

Hope I have made my position clear enough for all!

Stan,

Thanks for the reply.

I’ve looked at both sides of the coin (watched Carolyn Jessup’s 40min testimony last night about her escape from this wicked cult) and I agree with you to a point that something needs to be done. But I still maintain that the appeals court ruled correctly. All these children know is what they have been exposed to their whole life and it’s cruel to take them from their mothers. If there was no immediate danger to life then I am in favor of due process for each family and keeping the kids with their mothers till more facts are known- and that is exactly what the law says should happen. This is exactly the same way I would want to be treated if CPS knocked at my door.

As we watched the special, we discussed if you took one block on any city street, what would you find? Teenage pregnancies, girls 12, 13, 14, etc. having sex with boys and men their ages, etc. Would it be right to block off a city block and take all the children from that street?

Schools are providing contraceptives and telling teens (for years now) that when they have sex, they have to make sure it’s right for them. How many movies have shown this dialogue?

There was more in that special… How about the mothers ability to use food stamps because they are not all married? How much do finances have to do with the situation? Have you checked to see that the person making the allegation is on one of our presidential candidates support list?

Our society is full of young girls having sex with men of all ages (and teens). I am surprised at how the media has overlooked what is going on outside of the FLDS “walls.”

Children need human rights but not rights that interfere with their upbringing. What other offspring in nature override their parents direction? Do the birds call out to other nests for their rearing? Do lion cubs run to other prides? Do seals call out to other mothers returning from the sea to feed them? As there are customary practices in each animal kingdom, there are in humanity. Parents care for their children, support their children, nurture their children…

Maybe some people didn’t have a loving mother as I did. There were challenges with my father, but my mother protected us, taught us to respect our father, and she cared for us. I cannot imagine ever being taken away for some of the reasons I have read provided by CPS.

I recall one person stated that they say the women wearing long dresses. Are they going to take all the Amish children away next?

We cannot change people’s religious beliefs. And children will not always remain the religion of their parents (if they continue to worship God). If this was the case, would there be atheists?

I pray that all of us are tolerant of others and realize that we will not see eye-to-eye, but this is no reason to erode our Constitutional rights.

Good news from USA today!

“In a crushing blow to the state’s massive seizure of children from a polygamist sect’s ranch, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Thursday that child welfare officials overstepped their authority and the children should go back to their parents.”

Sorry, that’s USA Today.

Parents need to be protected from false claims to CPS. I am dealing with just such a situation and I have a blog on blogspot. Heathersfight.blogspot.com. I wrote about my situation. It has all just started and I hope that they decide to leave me alone. It doesn’t seem right to have a system in place that allows someone to send CPS to your house with unjustified claims and outright lies, just because the are angry with me. the whole thing really has nothing to do with my child, just the revenge of a room mate that we asked to leave.

It’s usually revenge or money, Heather. If it were really for the children, then a better job would be done protecting the ones who really need intervention.

I have started a petition asking that impeachment proceedings be initiated against Texas District Judge Barbara Walther for her unconstitutional actions in the FLDS fiasco. You don’t have to be a Texan to sign it, and you don’t have to agree with the religious beliefs of the FLDS to sign it. Please sign it, and I will forward the completed petition to Texas lawmakers. The link to the petition is http://www.gopetition.com/online/19682.html I have added your blog to my blogroll.

There is some truth to various parts of what is being said.
Yes, parent’s have rights. Yes, children have rights. Yes, State government has limited rights which need to follow strict Constitutional standards to preserve parents and children’s rights. But let’s clarify. The bottom line is FIT parents have the right and the responsibility to the care, control, and custody of their children, the State does not. NO parent has the right to abuse/neglect their children (this includes drug/alcohol abuse). Children deserve fit parents and have as their first right the right of parental protection. The State has NO right to take children away from their FIT parents through any type of forced removal, without first finding the parents guilty of abuse/neglect/unfitness.

However, States are quick to trample on family’s rights with the State parens patriea boot. Family law courts are notoriously anti-parent and generate excuses to remove children from their parents. This is especially true when it comes to single parents ensnared in a legal custody or visitation battle with a noncustodial nonparent, such as a grandparent or another relative. State government, courts, and attorney bar associations actively encourage others to bring lawsuits against parents, especially single parents, telling noncustodial nonparents they have “rights” to children that are not theirs and that they bear no responsibility for. (Imagine that, lawyers encouraging litigation!). The States pretty much guarantee the nonparent petitioner will get their request granted, much like a pharmacy prescription. Family Courts are mere service departments with almost limitless discretion/immunity and routinely grant such petitions. As with anonymous CPS calls, it takes nothing more than an allegation of abuse/parental unfitness to have a family court judge hand the children over to the petitioner. These petitioners routinely lie in court, without having to actually prove any of it with actual evidence. Once custody is court-ordered to the petitioner, they immediately sue the parent for child support and apply for money from the Kinship Care programs. The visitation court orders are for the duration of the child’s minority. By this point, the fit parent(s) and their children have suffered enormous emotional, mental, and financial devastation at the hands of the legal meat-grinder. This is whole-sale family abuse. And the judges do not care.

There is plenty of pro-parent/family caselaw and US Supreme Court rulings out there (Wisconsin v. Yoder, Stanley v. Illinois, Troxel v. Granville, Meyer v. Nebraska, Reno v. Flores, just to name a few). These case rulings safeguard the parental rights of FIT parents and their children. But lower courts routinely ignore them or find ways around them.

Yes, there are parents who abuse their children. But the overwhelming majority of parents, though not perfect, do not. To most parents, the thought of their 13/14/15 YO daughter marrying a 55YO man is disgusting and abhorent. Most parents try very hard to discourage their teenage children from engaging in sex and other self-harming activities. These fit parents, who do put their children’s best interests first, deserve Constitutional protection AGAINSTunwarranted State government.

Thanks for the great post goodparent. There’s a lot to think about in your post.

I received the following in an email. As Christians, we know about the promise from the Lord, but I wanted to share this because it is good to ponder the dialog.

NOAH…
In the year 2008, the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in the United States , and said:

“Once again, the earth has become wicked and over-populated, and I see the end of all flesh before me.

Build another Ark and save 2 of every living thing along with a few good humans.”

He gave Noah the blueprints, saying: “You have 6 months to build the Ark before I will start the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights.”

Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard - but no Ark.

“Noah!” He roared, “I’m about to start the rain! Where is the Ark?” “Forgive me, Lord,” begged Noah, “but things have changed.

I needed a building permit.

I’ve been arguing with the inspector about the need for a sprinkler system.

My neighbors claim that I’ve violated the neighborhood zoning laws by building the Ark in my yard and exceeding the height limitations.
We had to go to the Development Appeal Board for a decision.

Then the Department of Transportation demanded a bond be posted for the future costs of moving power lines
and other overhead obstructions, to clear the passage for the Ark ’s move to the sea.

I told them that the sea would be coming to us, but they would hear nothing of it.

Getting the wood was another problem. There’s a ban on cutting local trees in order to save the spotted owl.

I tried to convince the environmentalists that I needed the wood to save the owls - but no go!
When I started gathering the animals, an animal rights group sued me.
They insisted that I was confining wild animals against their will.
They argued the accommodations were too restrictive, and it was cruel and inhumane to put so many animals in a confined space.

Then the EPA ruled that I couldn’t build the Ark until they’d conducted an environmental impact study on your proposed flood.

I’m still trying to resolve a complaint with the Human Rights Commission on how many minorities I’m supposed to hire for my building crew.

Immigration and Naturalization are checking the green-card status of most of the people who want to work.

The trades unions say I can’t use my sons. They insist I have to hire only Union workers with Ark-building experience.

To make matters worse, the IRS seized all my assets, claiming I’m trying to leave the country illegally with endangered species.

So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least 10 years for me to finish this Ark.”

Suddenly the skies cleared, the sun began to shine, and a rainbow stretched across the sky.

Noah looked up in wonder and asked,
‘You mean you’re not going to destroy the world?’

‘No,’ said the Lord. ‘The government beat me to it.

(And how much more control should we give the government?)

Off-topic but great! LOL!!!

I wondered where to post it on the blog roll. I shared it because of the control of CPS breaking up families and all the proposed laws for children.

When the laws are enacted, they seem harmless. But they have consequences and regulate more than we know when they are being passed.

I hope others enjoy it, too.

Correct. What people may not realize is that when you cast a vote to enact a law, especially a civil law, you are actually voting to have part of your rights, or someone else’s rights, taken away and given to the “government” (usu. State gov.). On top of that, any State law comes with an enforcement component.

The Third Party visitation laws, granting “visitation rights” to YOUR children to a noncustodial nonparent is a good example. The petitioning party gets much more than “just” visitation. They get control of your life. They now have the power to wreak emotional, mental, and financial havoc on your family. With a court order, they now have the power to continually drag you into court for contempt. They now have the power to have you put in jail if you disagree with the court order and resist compliance. Keep in mind, these parents have broken no laws, and are fit, custodial parents.

They now have the power to take your kids anywhere, expose them to anything, without your permission, and you have NO power to stop it. If you complain, the court will tell you it’s none of your business.

They now have the power to turn your kids against you. Why else did they want so badly to cut you out of the visits?

They now have the power to make your children’s childhoods miserable, fraught with anxiety, conflicting loyalties, and manipulation, and worse, just so they can have their court-ordered time with your kids. Children have been abused under these court orders. Unfortunately, when parents try to protect their children from the abuser, the courts accuse the parents of “brainwashing” their children and forcing them to lie about the abuse. Lawyers get involved, GAL’s, mediators, counselors, social workers, oh yeah, and CPS, all get involved. Do you know what the bill is from all of this? Enormous. And fit single parents are forced to pay themselves into bancruptcy. But the courts and the litigants simply do not care.

These laws probably seemed “good” and “beneficial for children” at the time. However, enough families have been through this devastating experiment and it just doesn’t work. Fit parents, whether married or single and their children, deserve more respect than the States and the courts are currently giving us.

Great comment. Another thing about when the laws are passed - they often have more attached to the bill than people realize. While the bill might have been about the environment, another clause at the end may say something about regulating home improvements or limiting hours children can be outside during the daytime. If one doesn’t know what the entire bill is about a law can be passed with additional components and cause many problems.

This poses a problem sometimes when our legislators vote. It may look like they don’t support something important but the real reason they voted against a bill is the “fine print.”

My wife has written an excellent blog post commenting on this issue. I especially like her opening quoting German Pastor Martin Niemöller.

http://www.ericsons.net/554/impeach-texas-judge-barbara-walther

“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”

America is very much on that course, Mark. But, there’s too much division and arguing about differences that appear to hinder us from protecting our rights from the continual infringement on them.

Look forward to reading your wife’s blog.

Perhaps instead of defining our “parental rights” which is a mine field of loopholes and pitfalls, we should look at setting limits on the States ability to destroy fit families. Parents need to have input into what proof the State actually needs for each specific infringement on the family first. There needs to be clearer protocols for the police, CPS, and courts.

We need to contact our representatives and offer regulations for each specific State action, what defines “probable cause” in each case, and how that evidence can be collected and presented.

First, CPS needs a clearer way to act on “tips” and require more than phone-in accusations.

We need to decide what constitutes “abuse”, “neglect” and “unfit parent”. The problem with the last is there is a different parenting style for every parent. Some spank, some don’t. Some use humor, some yell. Some go to church, some don’t. Some use money to motivate, some don’t. But you cannot classify “Christianity” as “abuse” on the whole. Nor “Judeaism”. As long as these ideaologies are not preventing children from achieving, and the parents not physically abusing their children.

We can probably all criticize our parents for something in our childhoods. But not many can say that they were actually physically abused by their parents. It is tragic when that happens and certainly no fit parent would support that. But not spanking but bringing your children to church 1-3 times a week is not abuse. Teaching you child how to properly use a gun is not abuse. There are specific safety standards for the safe handling of a gun.

I think we have plenty of professionals who know what a physically/sexually abused child looks like. We need to have these professionals help with standards and criteria.
This is in no way complete, but hopefully readers will understand what I am suggesting. Instead of letting the Government further define our rights as parents, we should concentrate on defining/limiting the State’s ability to invade/intrude/trample/ignore the Constitutional rights of fit families. Afterall, the Constitution was/is a means to protect us AGAINST intrusive government, not to allow Government to play fast and loose with our rights and liberties.

I think that is why this legislation has been proposed for the very points you made.

State laws already define what you referenced. If you look under the spanking blog, you’ll real a lot about definitions and how they have already been established. Professionals are trained on what is abuse. They are just ignoring the law.

Instead, we have courts legislating from the bench. The judicial branch is supposed to interpret the laws NOT make them up. Unfortunately, that’s what is happening in every state - judges are legislating from the bench and not upholding the law.

The PRA recognizes what states across America is doing to erode our rights. Further, it addresses the critical need to prevent the adoption of the UN measures on American families.

As you look at what’s occurring in America (National ID, North American Union, borrowing money from China to pay for the war, our incredible debt, the printing of money we do not have, military going into homes and taking away home owners’ guns during non-war time on our homeland, homeland security, the many devices that people are putting in cars that officers have had their unions protect them from, gun laws to take guns out of American homes, etc.), we will have the “new world” daddy George Bush started establishing during his candidacy.

We know biblical prophecy (that of course they [government and atheists] need to convince us is mysticism so that a one-world government can become a reality). Still, there is no reason to be an animal running towards the slaughter house.

These attacks, in a variety of areas, are eroding our rights. And for the one-world government to come into existence, these attacks must continue to bring about success.

When the dust settles, the government will need us to be Godless and gunless. Then, when they come for us, no one will be there to help us, not even our children that they have gained control over. The children will have been indoctrinated to think like the government wants.

Unfortunately, you have people more concerned about hand-tapping and fingerpointing at people different than them with disdain, demanding people change their beliefs because they do not worship the same (or not at all). This division will be our downfall in America when it used to be our strength.

That should be our turning point we should get our children back to US Supreme Courts know that CPS lies and Judge have knowledge it so US Supreme is guilty also they are denying our rights the next president should have parental rights my case wasn’t in the news so ti them I’m not important if I made it on the news then my case would have been different I wish everybody get together and do a rally in Washington DC if some could name the time and place and show we don’t want to be push around

If polygamy is against the law, then why weren’t the men participating in polygamy arrested?

good point Lisa, That would have perhaps been a better than removing the children and really spoken to the problem.Instead of opening the door for other organizations/groups to be targeted,such as home-schoolers.

Melinda, I am horrified at the way you attack others, that is definitely not a Christian attitude that you portray. That is the kind of attitude that gives others a reason to investigate.

Stan,
you bring out many good points, but what you didn’t address is Lisa’s question and the whole point of the Texas case. Polygamy is against the law, why weren’t the men arrested? If the men are arrested for breaking the law then there is no reason to remove the children because the perpetrators are removed from the situation.
But instead they removed the children, and unfortunately this opens up the possibility for them to come after other groups of people who do things differently. I liked the post by Mark. It is exactly why we need legislation to protect the parents and the children.
I think we would all agree that child abuse is wrong and I agree with every example you cited, those are clear cases of parents overstepping their boundaries and would still be prosecutable under the amendment proposed here. We just want to make it harder for people to indiscriminately take children from their parents under false pretenses or by redefining the word abuse, which, pardon me for saying so, you seem to be doing.You may not agree with my religious views but as a parent I have the right to teach my children the Bible and what it teaches, and you have a right not to teach your children the Bible if you so choose that is what is so great about this great nation of ours. You would not like it (and it would be wrong) if I were to declare you an unfit parent because you don’t teach your child the Bible and claimed that in doing so you were abusing your child. I don’t see this as far fetched because in my mind with holding information on how to get to heaven from my child, is the worst crime I as a parent can commit. I don’t have any right to tell you that and you have no right to insist that teaching Christianity to my children is abuse.

Well stated Lydia.

Here’s one example on polygamy laws.

One state reads it is against the law to have two husbands. BUT, to enforce the law, BOTH men would have to be in the state AT THE SAME TIME. So, if one husband lived in the state in question, and another husband lived in another state, no charge could be brought against the woman. (This works in the reverse for a man with two wives.)

The law specifies when it is “polygamy.” By definition, in the example provided, it is NOT polygamy unless two husbands, or two wives are simultaneously in the same state. See the difficulty in bringing charges under these circumstances?

This is why “definitions” of the law are soooo important. So, while the men may have many wives, no crime was committed (if it occurred in the state I am referencing). I have not read Texas’ law, but the law may read similarly and thus no one can be charged. Most likely, the people doing this are in states that have this type of law.

When I get time, I’ll check into the law in Texas, but I suspect that it is written in this way. If so, no crime was committed. And if this is the case, would the CPS workers have a right to remove based on an allegation of polygamy that isn’t true?

Maybe I shouldn’t have answered that??? Most likely anyone wanting to do something like isn’t reading here.

A survey conducted recently told the confusion American public is in concerning the raid by the Child Protection Services, earlier this year, on a polygamous compound near San Angelo, Texas. Until today, I only heard of this raid on this web blog. One writer used the name “Mormon” in his personal web log. The content of the blog clearly displayed the writers misinformed opinions about even the use of the common name “Mormon” in religious context.

Mormon was a prophet historian who lived about 400 AD. He had the charge of one thousand years of history of a nation of people that lived on the American continent during that time. In today’s society, the Library of Congress would be the closest likeness to his responsibility. Mormon abridged the record and his son Moroni buried the transcripts for safe keeping. Tamped gold plates with etched engravings were the writing medium. Then, a time of great wars and destruction among the peoples of that era, even now, His success is honorable.
Those records, unearthed and translated in the early 1800’s, are called the book of Mormon; another Testament of Jesus Christ. This single event started a restoration of Biblical order. The organization, the only American established religion, of Christian believers adopted this book and its contents. The name of the organization itself declares facts that Jesus Christ performed miracles on both hemispheres of this world during his earthly ministry. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints carries the nickname “Mormon” solely from the title of the book. In fact, the word “Saint” at the end of that title claims all membership that follows this faith. A saint is anyone who professes to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and his great prophets. It is not the church of Mormon; Mormon was a mortal man, historian, editor, librarian, prophet, returned angelic messenger!
Likewise, Islam is a religion; Muslem is a nickname.

*36 % of people surveyed thought the compound,raided by the State agency,CPS, was part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, based in Salt Lake City, Utah.

*6% thought it partly related.(Possibly due to the use of the word polygamy.)

*29% knew there was no connection. (These must know polygamy ended over 100 years ago in the above named church.)

*29% did not know either way.

The previous writer in this blog who used the name “Mormon” in connection with the Texas raid was erroneously (mistakenly) confused. I have used sincere discretion (caution) while skimming all his misinformed opinions.

“Wise men lay up knowledge: but the mouth of the fool is near destruction”.
Proverbs 10:14
” He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed.
Proverbs 13:20
“…be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves”.
St. Matthew 10:16
The Book of Mormon was preserved and brought out of the ground to convince both Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ.

Dueteronomy 19:15-20 verses 16-17 in particular tells the truth of this Raid.
The CPS has violated parental rights of mothers by baring false witness against the innocent. Diligent inquisition is a primary right of all accused. The State acted as One-One witness-and only one.
Likewise, Adult males have committed rape against girls who are under the legal age of that state. I will never believe 440 young girls were taken.
It is the responsibility and order of US Government to see accountability falls on BOTH abusers–the state for abusing power and authority, and the males abusing sexual maturity against under-aged females–accordingly.

This is my voice,
PAF
Saturday, June 28, 2008

PAF,

It is good to be cautious about associating the wrong names with religious groups and beliefs. This happened before to the Seventh Day Adventist church. Where are your stats from? The raid was a gross injustice.

Don’t Give Up Our Rights,
I have learned over time; it is better for the spirit of peace and friendship to allow people to define themselves. It is part of my character, to do my best, not to judge ‘unrighteous’ judgements; I went to the source. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons by nickname) commissioned the survey in order to discover the level of Public awareness surrounding the confusion between two groups of people. Distinct differences surfaced. Video clips on the Mormon web site informed me further of the practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I came to know- the FLDS members are an isolated polygamous group based in Texas. The practices of the two groups are very different. However, It is always better to share what people have in common.
Natural Family crosses all boundaries. No human body is without a father and a mother. When two people of the opposite sex choose to procreate, and raise a child, they become a ‘parent’. Others may claim the title, however, through association and bonding with a child. This is a claim and not a right. We, at this blog, come together to support Parental Rights. Opinions are many. Parenting differs greatly and Rights are difficult to discover. The common factor is not parental Rights. The common factor is ABUSE. America does not tolerate abuse. The courts and Family Law should not have the authority to Force abuse on anybody. Anymore than a parent can force a child to live with abuse solely because they are a parent.
The amendment we all seek is not to protect children. Nor parents, nor ‘Child Savers’—the
U.S. Constitutional amendment we all seek is to protect All American equally from abuse and its long term effects on our culture. Abuse has defined itself in the voice of the people. Torture and inappropriate harm one toward another will bring even the President of the United States under its authority. Protection from abuse crosses all boundaries. Nobody should be above the law and all must be accountable to the US Constitutional law. America will not tolerate abuse. No man, women, or child (over the age of reason) has the Right to abuse another.
Parents will clearly define abuse from government agents. This form of abuse will become a crime against the people as quickly as the symptoms are recognized. A long exasperating sigh is a symptom of hopelessness against government tyranny.
“Getting Free”, author unknown, tells only one-third the story (although the part it does tell is excellent in its writing). When parents of government abuse define the next side and add to the present meaning, America will be well on her way to a US Constitutional protection and liberty for All her children and all God’s children as well. Abuse causes permanent harm, disorder, social and economical dysfunction. This we all feel. Define Functional; abuse easily becomes the vise. Functional homes define the proper role of parents and government.
Discover common ground. Then we may happily move toward our goal. United and Blessed.
Happy Independence Day. May Americans freely renew ourselves from the abuse of government, domestic and political, as we did on 04 July 1776, by declaring independence from all the forms of Abuse.
PAF
03 July 2008 16:25

Thanks for the stat source. Common ground is always better. We can achieve more together going in the same direction than pulling in different directions.

It sounds like PAF is right on the mark when he talks about freedom from abuse for everyone, and declaring independence from all the forms of Abuse.
I do have to say to Melinda, you need to go back and re-read your posts as if you do not know who you are. you will be ashamed. Stan does not deserve any of your name-calling–really, does any-one? Isn’t that abuse? And what about the person telling him to go back to his leftist blog site? What is that about? Share differences of opinion so we can all have something to think about, but you don’t need to try and convince us that what you think is right with rudeness, just state facts–keep it nice.

What bothers me the most is the way CPS with out proof comes into your home from a phone call and can take your children. It happened to me back in November of last year and I did not get my kids back untill 3 months latter. The report the CPS emergency worker wrote made me sick. My children are my world. When they gave them back there was no sorry,I was just doing my job. We have to do something and now. My children were taken after I won custody in court with my exwife. She called in a report of neglect just to hurt me. She did not care that it hurt the kids to. CPS came out like the house was a hell hole and just took the kids. Tell me in what world is this OK. Come on people we are better than that.

Bill, unfortunately, too many people think what you’re describing is so isolated that they have room to be apathetic toward those who are crying out about the type of injustice you are writing about. But, there are enough parents who have been going through these issues, who have witnessed others go through these issues, or have had the opportunity to see news reports on CPS abuses. These individuals know first-hand what is occurring. Your co-workers, family, friends, church members, etc., now have a reason to also support the PRA after witnessing what you experienced.