Should Parents Decide Curfew?

According to an August 16 story from The Hartford Courant, Hartford  (Connecticut) hopes to stem a wave of teen crime by reviving a curfew law already on the books.  Authorities believe the 9:00 pm deadline for minors under 18 to be off the streets will reduce crime, though many residents express doubts.  And teens with a legitimate reason to be out past the deadline wonder what will become of them.  Will they have to face police on a nightly basis as they take the bus home from work?

The American Civil Liberties Union opposes the law, claiming curfews interfere with parental autonomy.  David McGuire, a lawyer for the Connecticut ACLU chapter, told The Courant the union is considering taking legal action to strike down the intrusive ordinance.

This is not the first time the ACLU has spoken out against curfews.  In a 2003 article of the Cincinnati Enquirer, ACLU of Ohio legal director Raymond Vasvari is quoted as saying, “Whether or not their kids are on the street is a matter the parents should decide.”  The 2003 article focused on a daytime curfew being considered in Springfield Township, Ohio.

Protecting Kids by Preserving a Parent’s Right

According to an August 12 report from KXLY in Spokane, Washington, the Department of Child Protective Services for nearby Colville has come under investigation after a number of parents and legal guardians complained about the department’s practices: removing children from perfectly good homes, splitting families for no apparent reason, and treating legal guardians with great disrespect. Added to parental complaints is a letter by local area physicians claiming they have no confidence in the Colville DCPS office.

All by itself, the story should raise concerns, but Colville is not alone.

There they go again!

As Ronald Reagan used to say when debating political opponents, “There you go again!”

It would be appropriate to say the same thing to the state of California, who is doing its best to undermine the vital role parents play in the lives of their children.

While everyone’s attention has focused on the recent court case In re Rachel L., waiting to see if the right of parents to homeschool their children would be upheld by California courts, tactics of the University of California higher education systems were flying under the radar.

UC officials adopted a policy last year which dictates that students educated with curricula containing even an infinitesimal reference to a biblical worldview will not be permitted to attend a UC school. In the name of tolerance, other religious viewpoints are accepted…just not Christianity.

All religions are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Aside from this clear assault on Christianity, this policy forces parents to choose between their children attending a UC School and their religious convictions.

In essence school officials have declared that all curricula require the approval of UC School.

So any mom or dad who chooses to include any reference to a biblical world view in the home or private education of their children will find that those children are refused admittance to a University of California College.

California parents, you obviously can not be trusted to understand what is in the best interest of your children. You are welcome to teach your children what you will, but they are not welcome to attend classes at a publicly funded university.

Here is a complimentary copy of the US Constitution, yes, the one with the footprints all over it!

There they go again!

Government-Supervised Parenting

Part I of an In-depth Look at Article 18 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

During our series on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, most of the articles we have considered have focused on the relationship between the state and the child. Article 18 is therefore unique in its emphasis on the responsibilities of parents, and the supervised relationship that these parents have with the state.

Article 18 is also one of the more complex articles in the Convention, divided into three sections that address distinct facets of the relationship between parents and the state. This week, we will focus on the first section, which says that “States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child,” and that parents are primarily responsible for their children. As parents, “the best interests of the child will be their basic concern.”

The danger of Article 18 is that it places an enforceable responsibility upon parents to make child-rearing decisions based on the “best interests of the child,” subjecting parental decisions to second-guessing at the discretion of government agents.

More CPS Corruption…

Video Promo: Parental Rights in Danger

This short promo can be used at events or a coffee in your home. Check it out below here and download a high quality version for showing at your event here.

Many use California Ruling to Question Parents

The now famous California appeals court ruling has given many people the opportunity to ask a lot of offensive questions about parents and their ability to educate their children. Thomas D. Elias, a syndicated columnist certainly asked a lot of questions in his recent column.

His column starts off bad by accusing people of having a “knee-jerk” reaction to the ruling but it really runs off the tracks with this paragraph which follows quotes from the governor and other sources about the right of parents to direct their children’s education:

But pause for a moment and substitute the word “nourishment” for “education” in all this. Do parents have the right to provide as much or as little nourishment for their children as they like? If they don’t provide adequate nourishment, don’t they at some point become guilty of child abuse?

Who is claiming that, Mr. Elias? No one is saying parents have a right to abuse their children and no one is advocating that. It is insulting that you presume parents guilty in this way.

He goes on:

These questions lead to another: What about the rights of children to a quality education? Sure, many of the approximately 175,000 home-schooled California kids do get quality instruction from their parents. But what about children whose parents speak little English? What about those whose parents have less than a high school education of their own? How can they possibly be getting quality education in these circumstances?

Couldn’t all the same questions be asked about the California public schools? Why are parents the ones who are suspect but the state isn’t?

This line of thinking really goes to the heart of the question about parental rights. There are two legal doctrines at debate here:

Video: A California Mom’s Perspective on Bad Decision

Follow link to view video:

School Clinics Help Girls Evade Drug Safety Regulations

From the Capitol Resource Institute (and California!):

When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced in 2006 that the abortifacient drug “Plan B” was approved for over-the-counter use by women aged 18 years and older, CRI immediately criticized this action. One obvious negative point is that minors can easily sidestep the age requirement by having an older friend buy the drug for them.

But the reality is even worse than imagined. CRI was shocked and dismayed to discover through recent staff research that not only are minors able to access the drugs through older friends buying it for them, but it appears that on-campus health clinics are handing them out. And because many schools do not require parental notification when it comes to minors’ “confidential medical services,” parents are likely never notified that their young children are taking these dangerous, abortion-inducing drugs.

Our research revealed that, despite the FDA regulations requiring girls under 18 to obtain a prescription for “Plan B,” nearly 60 percent of California’s school-based health centers (SBHCs) provide emergency contraception to middle and high school students.

Each of California’s 64 SBHCs were contacted by CRI staff and we were able to speak directly with 41 of these clinics (a 64 percent response rate).

“It is an outrage that young girls are being helped by school clinics to sidestep FDA regulations that exist for their safety and protection,” Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute. “This is an example of how so-called women’s health advocates are not so much interested in women’s health as they are interested in unfettered access to abortion.”

But don’t worry, I’m sure the clinics have the child’s “best interest” in mind when they give out drugs without parental knowledge or consent. Of course there would never be a real need for parents to be involved here when we know that the government really knows what’s best for kids.

Check out other topics related to health issues and the child-parent relationship from our blog.

A Child’s Right to a Family… Almost

An In-depth Look at Article 9 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

Last week, we began our series on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) by looking at the Convention’s central focus on the “best interests of the child,” which allows the government to substitute its will for that of the parents. This principle is significant as we turn our attention to one of the first rights that the CRC grants to children: the right to remain in their family.