protecting children by empowering parents - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 8 Old 02-28-2010, 06:27 PM - Thread Starter
 
karika's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
http://www.parentalrights.org/

To begin to save the world, we must first nurture the children. Read "The Continuum Concept: In Search of Happiness Lost"    saynovax.gifgoorganic.jpgintactlact.gifMe-hippie.gifreading.gifhelp.gif10.5 yo dd1- nut.gifreading.gifblahblah.gif ; 5 yo dd2- angel.gifhearts.gifbouncy.gif
karika is offline  
#2 of 8 Old 03-14-2010, 04:12 AM
 
jenneology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So glad you posted this! I'm a supporter!

M.Ed. Mama to Chunka (1/07), Beauty (5/09) and Elizabear 3/12): Birth Doula (working toward certification) AAMI Midwifery Student, Advocating with Solace for Mothers & The Birth Survey

jenneology is offline  
#3 of 8 Old 03-14-2010, 02:40 PM
 
Ron_Low's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So, would this movement be in favor of "parental rights" to harm their child?

-Ron
HIS body, HIS decision.
Ron_Low is offline  
#4 of 8 Old 03-14-2010, 04:05 PM
tlh
 
tlh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Michigan's Thumb
Posts: 441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron_Low View Post
So, would this movement be in favor of "parental rights" to harm their child?
Yes.
tlh is offline  
#5 of 8 Old 03-23-2010, 02:38 AM
Administrator
 
adinal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 24,811
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Just a reminder folks, this is Activism. Per our guidelines, there is no debate. If you don't support a cause someone has posted about, submit your own thread, or post in the appropriate forum to discuss the topic. Do not debate in here. Posts that are debating the validity or merit of the the cause/actionable item will be removed. Post that are clarifying information related to the cause are fine.

Thank you.

winner.jpg Adina knit.gifmama to B hearts.gif 4/06  and E baby.gif  8/13/12 (on her due date!) homebirth.jpg waterbirth.jpg

 

adinal is offline  
#6 of 8 Old 03-23-2010, 04:42 AM
 
Oubliette8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
There seems to be a bit of confusion as to what the Parental Rights Amendment is about. My reading is that they are AGAINST the US ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is the CRC that states spanking would not be allowed, and that children have freedom to chose their own religion.
The folks for Parental Rights also point out that ratification of the CRC could potentially impact a parents right to homeschool, make medical decisions, and other both common and non-mainstream parenting choices.

Just wanted to clear that up, I was a bit confused myself at fist.
Oubliette8 is offline  
#7 of 8 Old 03-24-2010, 02:37 AM
 
jenneology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I've requested the organization to write an explanation in response to your question and then post it on the website. I got a personal response that said that this verbiage: "neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served" means that the government is allowed to intervene when the interest of the higher order refers to abuse or neglect.

The caveat is that the government has to prove that the family is broken and the parents are unfit. The email I got also had in it cited a precedent (Quincilli v. Walcot, decided in 1978) where it was concluded that the Constitution is violated if the government interferes with an intact family without first proving that a parent is unfit. Another case (from 1982 of*Santosky v. Kramer) clarified the state must prove that a parent is unfit by "clear and convincing evidence." I was told that the lower courts are *supposed* to use this test when dealing with cases involving parental rights: the government must convincingly prove that a parent is "unfit" to raise the child, before intervening in the family. Unfortunately, the state courts often treat parents as unfit without ever proving that the parents are harming their children, or are unable to provide for their needs.

This amendment may not specify the specific cases where the government may act or not act, but an overly-strict amendment would stand virtually no chance of passing. Terms like "child abuse" or "danger to the child" carry a wide variety of meanings and connotations to different people. I was told that by introducing these terms into the amendment, the framers of the amendment would run the risk of creating more unresolved problems over issues that are both complex and deeply divisive.

Instead, the parental rights amendment requires the government to satisfy the burden of proof in*every*case, offering parents protection that is both reasonable and effective.* Instead of being treated as unfit or abusive parents in every case, parents -- like every other person in the United States -- will be innocent until proven guilty.

I hope that answers the question.

And I hope that the organizations takes me seriously and posts an article containing this information on their site. Its an important question that many people have. If they don't properly address it, I feel they'll be losing supporters who may have supported the effort if that have that little bit of information.

For me, I still am leery of "proving a parent is unfit by clear and convincing evidence" especially when the issue at hand is refusing vaccinations, an unwanted cesarean, or choosing an unassisted birth. Ahhh, the weaknesses of the legal system.

M.Ed. Mama to Chunka (1/07), Beauty (5/09) and Elizabear 3/12): Birth Doula (working toward certification) AAMI Midwifery Student, Advocating with Solace for Mothers & The Birth Survey

jenneology is offline  
#8 of 8 Old 04-07-2010, 11:14 AM
 
mamaofthree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,346
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
is there a layman's sort of sight for both the UN right of a child and the parents rights? thanks

h

mama to 6 amazing children joy.gif married to my main man for 21 years love.gif and finally home FULL time dishes.gifhang.gifknit.gif

mamaofthree is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off