Michael Amity calls for action in spreading the awareness of a new constitutional amendment.
_____
President Obama, leader of the free world, spent the weekend roaming the country to meet ordinary people who have written him letters [1]. One pit-stop was in Texas, a state currently going through a border crisis, and where Democrats are looking particularly bad in the lead up to the mid-terms. But at least one important letter, written by a Texas grandmother, managed to miss the scope of the President’s tour. Her mission was born out of a depressing situation, with her grandchildren taken into state custody. Traci Barth seeks to reunite with them, so she can give them the loving home they deserve. Instead, her family’s case is stuck in devastating limbo.
Barth’s arduous work has exhausted other options, including meeting the Inspector General, according to the documented saga, made visible on a petition she started [2]. The petition has been closed by the site, she says, but not before it gained more than 500 supporters — people who agree things needs to change. Barth began writing letters to the White House back in 2012, but got only an automatic, daft response, with not a word about her grandchildren. Her issue is far too common, and near and dear to any caregiver. These cases are rampant, each with their own horror stories that support the claim that the scariest three letters to any parent are: CPS.
♦◊♦
Michael Chaplin has felt the fear. He spent his Father’s Day, not relaxing with his child, but terrified because of a threat he received in the mail. His worries arose from a matter at his son Ethan’s school, where the 13 year old was showing off a pencil-twirling trick. Innocent enough, but not to one classmate who reported it as too reminiscent of a gun. “Zero-tolerance” being the nomenclature, it’s no surprise that the school did their investigation; news outlets picked up the story, as did international media. Support came on the side of “boys will be boys,” and sensibly, the school concluded that Ethan was blameless, no discipline was needed. That would be the end of the story, if America was a more perfect nation.
However, as the situation was just quieting down, the state of New Jersey decided to get involved. Michael now has to bear the burden of a terrifying prospect [4]. The investigators are saying he was potentially neglectful, and that Ethan might have to be put up for adoption if they don’t fully comply with demands. So comply they have, to the tune of the child’s blood being drawn, urine examined, brain analyzed. All came back normal, but that’s not enough, they’re saying more is needed before releasing their threat to revoke a parent’s rights. Why is a spinning pencil enough to green-light this assault? Clearly, a “legal kidnapping” — as it’s called in certain circles — is a fear felt by many families.
Here, a far worse case, that of a teenager named Justina Pelletier [5]. She became sick and was brought by her concerned parents to multiple clinics to explore different options for her care. One respected practice said she suffers from a rare cellular disease, but another of equally high repute thought it was a psychological issue. The family was in the middle of a conflict and a choice had to be made. That seems like a fine assessment, but the state of Connecticut thought it more complicated.
Somehow, an assumption was made, that since her parents favored one diagnosis (the cellular one), that they couldn’t be trusted with custody over Justina any longer. This came through a medical dispute pitting professionals against parents, and the decision to take her away was made on a judges order. The Pelletiers couldn’t even visit their daughter on holidays. While separated, her condition worsened — she is currently wheelchair bound. But thankfully, after a valiant effort from her parents, and constant pushing from the public sphere, as well as a tearful plead from Justina to the judge, she’s finally been returned home, ending a 16-month court-sanctioned abduction.
What this shows is that doing nothing wrong is potentially cataclysmic. That being a good parent, wanting to make the best choice in your own good conscience, is either so rare these days that no one, not even a judge, can trust it, or that state agents, social workers (licensed) and case workers (unlicensed) are so eager to maintain their importance, that they act with unchecked power to torment and uproot families.
There are situations where swift justice is needed, such as this mother who allegedly pumped her son with salt injections until he died [6]. The accused woman is suspected to have a mental disorder called Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy, which is where caregivers harm the person they care for to attain sympathetic feelings from others. Incidentally, it’s been learned that she had a blog and private social media accounts where she left clues that could now be seen as evidence of methodic poisoning. In 2000, a new phrase was coined called Munchausen by Internet. It explains how social media might extend the disease. [7] Her online posts were concocted drama. She told lies, such as her son’s made-up father having died a hero, and that she was a mother to a second child, who was actually the child of a family friend. If anyone in her networks had caught on, they might’ve suspected her malignancy. Doctors are now sometimes looking at patients social media accounts for misrepresentations to confirm a suspicion of Munchausen. Ideally, someone should have thought to scrutinize the repeated hospitalizations of her otherwise healthy boy, and then there could’ve been clear action to take involving chemical tests, monitoring and interviews.
This depravity, if true, shows exactly the reason for state oversight, but also points to the limitations of watchful eyes. It seems our helpers are over-extended, or could possibly be of use when exigent circumstances reveal themselves, but by continually presuming average parents guilty, we create horrible outcomes. Each slip-up is as harrowing as an innocent person sent to Death Row. When, after years of battle, a court reverses its mistake (if the victimized are lucky), it’s like the fate of innocent convicts who can never get back their time lost, nor their confidence in society restored.
We need to debate this as strongly as the death penalty, and can no longer sit by and watch parents dragged through the mud with senseless harassment. These wrongful accusations are preventable, and could be considered crimes even, if State powers were checked more thoroughly. We’re better than this as a nation, and have to expect more from our public servants. In short, if we let bad apples spoil the bunch here, we not only tarnish a parents basic Right, but waste valuable resources on pointless meddling.
♦◊♦
The problem doesn’t start with a letter in the mail, or result from a snooper’s call, it’s embedded in signs everywhere. Quite literally, one example was spotted by Christy Duffy, a Michigan mom, while taking her daughter to the doctor [8]. There, she saw a sign that said every parent of an adolescent was required to leave the room for a short interview, so that the staff could have a private talk with their child. Duffy, having done nothing suspicious, opposed her authority being arbitrarily transferred to a stranger, but was told, “It’s a law. There is no opt out.” Further inquiries, though, determined it was a mistake. No such law exists! Duffy went on a media storm to kick up dust, and the doctor’s office took down the sign as well as admitted their error [9].
Workers doing their jobs may be trying to help, but in situations where their help isn’t needed or requested. Though it may be nice, warranted even, for a doctor to allow a child the chance to ask questions, talk freely, keep secrets from their parents without worry of punishment or get useful education and learn protective measures, these great initiatives become insensible if they, by necessity and imposition, challenge the average parent’s rights. We can help parents, by offering them greater credit, or risk being constantly tormented by the state with no end in sight. The state’s role is better served to citizens when unwarranted force is not applied.
Any parent or perspective parent should be getting involved. This is something we need to settle. Either we want parents to inevitably defer to strangers with their gaze on the latest ordinances–raising our kids by committee — or parenting is to be seen as so crucial that it must be considered a Right.
It’s a tragic irony indeed when an investigator focuses on nonsense, rather than preventing abuse — they end up as the ones who are abusive; rather than catching the guilty parents who neglect their children, the investigators prove themselves neglectful by missing the boat completely. I suggest a new approach to tort-law that stems from the parent, not the state, being the glaring official in their child’s life. If too many innocent parents are forced to prove they’re worthiness, thus clogging up the system, then that means agencies have too much power, and laws to punish bad parents, should similarly be applied to increase statutes for reprimanding agents who misuse authority. Remembering those Death Row inmates, thinking of the hundreds of thousands of children in Foster Care, it’s inexcusable that some have a loving parent (or two), or relative who wants to nurture them, but they’re kept apart. We can and must try to fix it because just one occasion is too much.
We can no longer let tons of wasted hours be spent tackling baseless claims against good parents, rather than chasing the psychotic ones. A new approach involving systemic support of parenting faculties would largely prevent misappropriations of tax dollars and blanket indictments of all, while freeing up the necessary time to spend chasing real criminals.
♦◊♦
Any system has cracks in it that people unfortunately fall through. But we are founded on the principle that we don’t let our government run amok or supersede our personal plights on the whole. That’s where our founding principles reside, but the sad fact is that now we’re leaning towards investigating everyone, rather than respecting their general competency, indicating we’ve gone too far off the beaten path. Where has the idea gone that we are good-natured people with our hearts in the right place?
Under the Jeffersonian view, basic Rights are “endowed” by nature, or God, if you will, and therefore extend to all humans equally irrespective of government. This is often called the negative view, because it creates an imperative to not interfere, to “do no harm” as doctors say; that is the governments role, in essence, to protect our Rights. Each may draw their own conclusion on the best amount of oversight, but in debating the extent of parental autonomy — in deciding who oversees what a child will experience — it either comes first to the parent or to the whim of legislators.
The Supreme Court weighed in almost a century ago in a landmark case equating parenting with liberty. Their decision in Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) [10] said that children are not “the mere creature[s] of the state,” and it is up to parents, who had the moralistic “high duty” to make choices to nourish their children throughout maturation. So we have our best interpreters of our highest law saying parents, not the state, are in need of support. The Court has found repeatedly that trusting parents with their kids, by and large, is in tune with the most pivotal part of American ideology.
When a government gets used to imposing excessively, however, the results are harmful to everyone. Look around. Whether it’s the NSA or the TSA, bag checks in subways or checkpoints on American highways, citizens are being regularly coerced to trade Rights for implied accusations that lead to real, trumped-up charges.
If you side with the parents, a movement is spreading [11] for a new Constitutional Amendment that could uphold a guarantee that “Fit parents should be allowed to direct the upbringing of their children.” A Joint Resolution, H. J. 50, would do just that; it has 79 co-sponsors, and is gaining traction, having just been introduced in the Senate last month. As it stands, it would clarify governments duty to uphold protections to parents as follows:
The current mechanism does not hold true to our nation’s ideals. We should change it to consider the Rights of parents as “unalienable.”
____
Sources:
1) http://1.usa.gov/W7NcKN
2) http://www.change.org/
3) http://www.wxyz.com/
4) http://youth.be/oWwa9v-mxU0
5) http://www.foxnews.com/
6) http://gawker.com/mom-
7) http://www.lohud.com/story/
8) http://oneduffy.blogspot.
9) http://www.parentalrights.
10) http://en.wikipedia.org/
11) www.parentalrights.org
Michael, that is some pretty scary stuff and I’m sure these are just a sampling of many. As I was reading this, all I had in my mind is that I was glad my kids are grown. But then I thought of my grandsons and my heart sunk. They are 21/2 and 41/2. Good gosh this is frightening.
I’ve seen parental authority being eroded for years but had no idea that it was to this extent.
Have you gone national with this? Obviously the liberal main stream media won’t grab it but other outlets?
Wishing I could do more. Hopefully you’ll help get the word out.
I agree that governmental overreach is a problem but parental rights aren’t the solution. Parents are too prone to shelter children from ideas they don’t like. What we need are children’s rights. A parent should not have a say whether a child opts in or out of education programs. They can provide a counter-argument, that should be enough. Nor should they be allowed to prevent other’s from exposing their children to views they may not like. Of course bureaucrats should be much more restricted on when they can remove children against the children’s wishes. Respecting competency is a good idea… Read more »
Kids can’t make a decision weighing multiple factors and consequences at the age of 5. While I am responsible for the health, well-being, and development of my child. I will be making the decisions. My kids wishes are a factor, of course, but kids rights? Will the kid be taking on the consequences of any negative outcome of their bad decisions? Will the child be getting a job to pay for any increased cost their decisions cause to be incurred? The problem is that parents aren’t taking enough responsibility for the raising of their own children. Unless a child’s welfare… Read more »
“My kids wishes are a factor, of course, but kids rights? Will the kid be taking on the consequences of any negative outcome of their bad decisions?” I didn’t say that nothing could trump those rights, just considering them would help in a lot of cases. Of course a child should receive negative consequences of bad decisions, sheltering kid’s from such and trying to replace them with artificial punishments is a big part of our problem. “Will the child be getting a job to pay for any increased cost their decisions cause to be incurred?” Not really relevant to talking… Read more »
You’ll need a pretty gigantic movement with a lot of funding to be able to amend the Constitution with this. 3/5ths of the state legislatures will have to agree. Lots of luck with that.