or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

* - Page 20

post #381 of 406

"For if parens patriae were limited to 'intervention' when parents fail, there would be no basis at law for assigning the custody of children to biological parents by birth certificate. Unless the education and upbringing of children were a matter of plenary public authority, the custody of children could be neither 'assigned' nor 'certified'. Birth Certification, like public schooling, is not merely service to families. It is an expression of parens patriae, of the public responsibility for safeguarding the independent interests of all children, all future citizens." ~ Parens Patriae: A Comparative Legal Study of Sovereign Authority and Public Education by Jason C. Blokhuis p.149

post #382 of 406

You want to truly understand the nature of parens patriae and the powers of the state, then i suggest you read the lengthy dissertation by Jason C. Blokhuis.
 

Once a child becomes a citizen (Birth Certificate = citizenship*), they are the states responsibility. Biological parents are given custodial privileges via the birth certificate, as it is assumed that biological parents will put the interest of the child before their own. Of course when parents do not do this and the matter comes before a judge, sometimes the child is removed. If you look over the court cases in the dissertation, you'll see that removal isn't just on grounds of abuse or neglect. Most often though, what is in the child's best interest is to stay with their biological parent.

 

*While being born in the US qualifies you to be a citizen with all privileges and responsibilities that comes with it, you still have to claim this right; most often via the birth certificate.

post #383 of 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by savithny View Post



You think that CPS finds its cases via searching birth certificate archives?   Really? 

Do you know what birth certificates actually are, how they're filed, who keeps them, etc?  

You really think that if you don't have a BC, you can float through life unnoticed by anyone, no matter what ou do? 

CPS finds cases via people reporting.  If you get a birth certificate, but then choose to live without banks, without enrolling your child in school, without WIC or TANF or SSI or any of those other programs, and NEVER let another person see how you treat your kid, you're just as "invisible" to CPS as if you didn't get a birth certificate at all.

They don't run special reports every year from the county vital records files, saying "Hm, lets check all the kids born in 2005 against the kindergarten enrollment in the county this year. Really.   They don't have the capability.  Birth records aren't sent to some central FBI processing center for the feds to assign tracking cameras.
as a child protection social worker, i can confirm that this is true. we do not have access to birth certificates, nor do we have the resources to randomly check in on people. we know about kids when people report. period. reporters are often neighbours. we contact the parents based on the contact information provided by the reporter. if warranted according to the law, we remove. no where in there do we ask for birth certificates- in fact, in my jurisdiction anyway, the law is quite clear that ANY child within our jurisdiction is able to be removed if warranted, whether that child is a citizen or not. not having a birth certificate for that child would not effect the process at all- except, possibly, if cps felt like arguing that they did not have to return the child to you because you could not prove you were the parent if you chose to bring the lack of birth certificate to their attention.
post #384 of 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by linnea27 View Post


as a child protection social worker, i can confirm that this is true. we do not have access to birth certificates, nor do we have the resources to randomly check in on people. we know about kids when people report. period. reporters are often neighbours. we contact the parents based on the contact information provided by the reporter. if warranted according to the law, we remove. no where in there do we ask for birth certificates- in fact, in my jurisdiction anyway, the law is quite clear that ANY child within our jurisdiction is able to be removed if warranted, whether that child is a citizen or not. not having a birth certificate for that child would not effect the process at all- except, possibly, if cps felt like arguing that they did not have to return the child to you because you could not prove you were the parent if you chose to bring the lack of birth certificate to their attention.

 



Read the above posts about parens patriae. The powers of cps to remove a child from a home temporarily until a hearing occurs comes from this doctrine. The doctrine of Parens Patriae allow the court to remove children that are citizens only...or when extreme abuse is occurring. I've pointed this example already in this thread, but the Fundamentalist mormon sect in Texas were given back their children against the wishes of CPS. CPS did not have the authority to take these children according to the court.

 

The point of Birth Certificate has more to do with the State as father then it does with CPS. The state is the father...think about that.

post #385 of 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akkarin View Post

 



Read the above posts about parens patriae. The powers of cps to remove a child from a home temporarily until a hearing occurs comes from this doctrine. The doctrine of Parens Patriae allow the court to remove children that are citizens only...or when extreme abuse is occurring. I've pointed this example already in this thread, but the Fundamentalist mormon sect in Texas were given back their children against the wishes of CPS. CPS did not have the authority to take these children according to the court.

 

The point of Birth Certificate has more to do with the State as father then it does with CPS. The state is the father...think about that.

Like I said, the child protection legislation in my jurisdiction is quite clear that we can remove any child if just cause is found whether they are a citizen or not. If they are not a citizen, we are to notify the consulate of their country of birth but continue to keep them in care.

 

If you are talking about the YFZ ranch in Texas (I'm not going to go through 20 pages of posts to confirm but I suspect you are) it was ruled that the children were to be returned because the court found that there was not enough evidence that they were in immediate danger and because the original call from "Sarah" was thought to be a hoax. I'm not from Texas so I'm not all that familiar with that case, but from what I'm reading online it had nothing to do with the children having or not having birth certificates. In fact, that appears to have made it more difficult for the parents because they had to submit to DNA testing to prove the children were theirs, from what I can read online.

 

I am familiar with parens patriae. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Parens+Patriae says:

In the United States, the parens patriae doctrine has had its greatest application in the treatment of children, mentally ill persons, and other individuals who are legally incompetent to manage their affairs. The state is the supreme guardian of all children within its jurisdiction, and state courts have the inherent power to intervene to protect the best interests of children whose welfare is jeopardized by controversies between parents. This inherent power is generally supplemented by legislative acts that define the scope of child protection in a state. (emphasis mine)

 

I can't find any reputable site that claims that you maintain the "right" to abuse your children and prevent CPS involvement simply by refusing to get a birth certificate. Whether you have a birth certificate for your child or not, you would still be subject to the laws of the jurisdiction you are in, and legislation in your state likely states that children in the state are subject to protection from abuse and neglect. This would apply regardless of their citizenship status or possession of a birth certificate, just as you are subject to any other laws in the jurisdiction you are in, citizen or not.

post #386 of 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by linnea27 View Post

 

I can't find any reputable site that claims that you maintain the "right" to abuse your children and prevent CPS involvement simply by refusing to get a birth certificate. Whether you have a birth certificate for your child or not, you would still be subject to the laws of the jurisdiction you are in, and legislation in your state likely states that children in the state are subject to protection from abuse and neglect. This would apply regardless of their citizenship status or possession of a birth certificate, just as you are subject to any other laws in the jurisdiction you are in, citizen or not.

 

 

 

This has never been about abuse. Why must everyone always reduce it to just abuse. I am not pro abuse; i am anti-government as a father of my child. The power of parens patriae covers more than abuse, like education and health care. For instance in Switzerland, it is illegal to home school your child. Homeschooling was not so widely allowed in the US at a time. This is because the State feels, as the father of the child, that the best way to educate a child is via Public or Private institutions where children are taught by so call 'experts' in the field of education. Thanks to Wisconsin vs. Yoder, we can freely home school...depending on the State you live in. Idaho has no restrictions, Ohio requires approved curriculum by the district superintendent each school year.

 

Even with home schooling allowed some people have lost their child, temporarily, because of overzealous individuals that are opposed to home schooling. This is the very thing i have issues with. Yes there are parents that wont educate their children and it is a shame. Those parents, in my opinion, are stupid. Does that mean I should have to worry about my child being removed because of zealots like them? Assuming of course I educate my child at or above standard. It is a possibility as long as the state is the father. I personally want to remove the state from that role. The only way to do this is by not obtaining a marriage license, no birth certificate (claiming US citizenship), and lastly no SSN. Then government only has jurisdiction if i actually abuse or severely neglect my child.

post #387 of 406
A
post #388 of 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akkarin View Post

The only way to do this is by not obtaining a marriage license, no birth certificate (claiming US citizenship), and lastly no SSN. Then government only has jurisdiction if i actually abuse or severely neglect my child.



Just because you try to keep yourself and your child "off the record" does not mean that a concerned government worker of some sort couldn't come check on you and your child's setting. You aren't invisible just because you prefer to have no numbers attached to your person.

I don't think you are being very level headed.
post #389 of 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by philomom View Post


Just because you try to keep yourself and your child "off the record" does not mean that a concerned government worker of some sort couldn't come check on you and your child's setting. You aren't invisible just because you prefer to have no numbers attached to your person.
I don't think you are being very level headed.

 

They could try and be refused, absent a court order. Harder to get a court order without jurisdiction.

 

I could be wrong. It is a much scarier proposition for me to be wrong. If we can not remove ourselves from jurisdiction, then we are owned by the US. We would be vassals and the US our lord. Our children would be our lords automatically as they were born to slaves.

 

No I like to believe we choose our lord rather then we have no choice.

post #390 of 406

"For if parens patriae were limited to 'intervention' when parents fail, there would be no basis at law for assigning the custody of children to biological parents by birth certificate. Unless the education and upbringing of children were a matter of plenary public authority, the custody of children could be neither 'assigned' nor 'certified'. Birth Certification, like public schooling, is not merely service to families. It is an expression of parens patriae, of the public responsibility for safeguarding the independent interests of all children, all future citizens." ~ Parens Patriae: A Comparative Legal Study of Sovereign Authority and Public Education by Jason C. Blokhuis p.149

 

 

posting this again!

post #391 of 406

Then there is this...

 

The state, acting as parens patriae, can make decisions regarding mental health treatment on behalf of one who is mentally incompetent to make the decision on his or her own behalf, but the extent of the state's intrusion is limited to reasonable and necessary treatment.

post #392 of 406

You're picking what you want from the dissertation. 

post #393 of 406

I'm sorry are we not reading the same quote? It clearly says ALL CHILDREN, which is illustrated over and over again in the cases the author references. Shall i add quotes of Judges flat out saying that they are using parens patriae to decide the best interest of the child? I used this specific quote for it's blatant reference to Birth Certificates.

 

It seems that no matter what evidence I use, you will not believe the truth.
 

post #394 of 406

Agur v. Agur 32 A.D.2d 16 (1969) Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department

 

The basic principles governing the custody of infants are beyond debate. The State, succeeding to the prerogative of the crown, acts as parens patriae.

Sometimes the power is exercised legislatively...sometimes constitutionally...but usually by the court.... Thus it is that agreements by parents as to the custody of their children are never final but subject always to the supervening power of the court. ~Justice James D. Hopkins

 

This case is in reference to a divorce agreement signed by both parties as to the custody of their children. The court can supervene their agreement and passes a judgment based upon what it believes is in the best interest of the child. A clear demonstration of the state as the father!

post #395 of 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akkarin View Post

 

They could try and be refused, absent a court order. Harder to get a court order without jurisdiction.

 

I could be wrong. It is a much scarier proposition for me to be wrong. If we can not remove ourselves from jurisdiction, then we are owned by the US. We would be vassals and the US our lord. Our children would be our lords automatically as they were born to slaves.

 

No I like to believe we choose our lord rather then we have no choice.

You absolutely have a choice.  No one is holding you in the United States.  But if you choose to live under the jurisdiction of the United States-- by LIVING IN THE COUNTRY-- then-- *sigh*  why do I have a feeling this is not going to get through?

 

To avoid being under the jurisdiction of the United States government, you will have to remove your physical person from that jurisdiction.  Move.  Choose which country you want to be part of.

post #396 of 406

It's like anything, if you don't like what is going on either leave or change it.  However here in the US we have laws.  Not all laws are created equal.  You know what would be nice?  It would be nice is there were no shitty parents in the world.  It would be nice if there never had to be another adult who had to intervene for a child or for a mentally ill person.  In divorce quite a few couples need another person to step in and decide where the kids should go because even an abusive toxic parent thinks they should be able to keep their kids.  Kids need to have rights and the only way to ensure they are safe and do have a voice is to not leave 110% in the hands of the parents. 

 

 

Try to argue that there never needs to be someone out there to intervene in an abusive, neglectful situation. 

post #397 of 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly1101 View Post

You absolutely have a choice.  No one is holding you in the United States.  But if you choose to live under the jurisdiction of the United States-- by LIVING IN THE COUNTRY-- then-- *sigh*  why do I have a feeling this is not going to get through?

 

To avoid being under the jurisdiction of the United States government, you will have to remove your physical person from that jurisdiction.  Move.  Choose which country you want to be part of.

I don't think it is that easy.  People cannot just up and move to another country.  There is a lot of hoops and read tape to immigrating/becoming a permanent resident somewhere.  

 

She isn't being held in the USA, but if she cannot get in anywhere else, then she sort is, by default.

 

What are the options when you do not like something?

 

put up with it

opt out

work to change it

leave.

 

All of the above have costs - some way higher than others.

post #398 of 406

Lat. "parent of his country." Used when the government acts on behalf of a child or mentally ill person. Refers to the "state" as the guardian of minors and incompetent people.

 

I have no problem with this.  I know you do and that's fine.  I'm saying I understand why it's in place.  It wouldn't need to be if people could be decent.  But they can't now can they?!


 

 

Legal term that defines the State's legal role as the guardian to protect the interests of children who cannot take care of themselves. For example, in an abuse or neglect case, this concept is used to explain the State's duty to protect minor children who lack proper care and custody from their parents.

 

Who else will stand up for the people/children who need someone to be their voice?

post #399 of 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I don't think it is that easy.  People cannot just up and move to another country.  There is a lot of hoops and read tape to immigrating/becoming a permanent resident somewhere.  

She isn't being held in the USA, but if she cannot get in anywhere else, then she sort is, by default.

I think the main point of the PP though is that the US doesn't intervene 'because you got a birth certificate'. The US intervenes because you live in its jurisdiction. If you don't want the US to be able to intervene, you can't simply choose not to get a birth certificate & expect them to stay out of your life. You'd need to move to a country where children don't have rights.

Akkarin, I think most of us agree that the state is "the father" in that it does have the power to make the ultimate decision (and whether that's a good or bad thing is irrelevant at this point in the conversation). What we are disagreeing with is your assertion that you can simply opt out by foregoing a birth certificate. Whether or not you have a birth certificate for your child, the state can & will intervene on your child's behalf if they (rightly or wrongly) feel it's necessary. I get why this can be scary, I really do. But I am worried about you operating under a delusion that you are protected in some way by simply not having a birth certificate.
post #400 of 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imakcerka View Post

Legal term that defines the State's legal role as the guardian to protect the interests of children who cannot take care of themselves. For example, in an abuse or neglect case, this concept is used to explain the State's duty to protect minor children who lack proper care and custody from their parents.

 

Who else will stand up for the people/children who need someone to be their voice?

 

I can understand why akkarin is annoyed by the concept of "state as father."  My husband is my children's father - not the state, you know?  The whole thing has the potential to be rife with issues.

 

I say potential, because the reality is for most people, the state will never act as father.  

 

If you are being practical and weighing choices - you need to weigh getting a birth certificate (with the very remote possibility that having a birth certificate will cause your child problems) versus the very real difficulties and obstacles your child will have if they do not have a birth certificate.

 

Who do we owe our support to - our ideologies or children?  For the most part, the answer is our children.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Unassisted Childbirth