Our Rights As Parents?



What rights do parents have?  What is parental responsibility?  Where do the rights of parents begin and end.  All rights begin and end when you are infringing on the rights of others.  Where do the rights of children begin and end?  Do parents have the right to impose a system of rules in their homes?  Do the parents have the right to tell children not to do certain things and enforce the house rules against smoking, drinking, doing illegal drugs?  What about sexual promiscuity? Can parents regulate their children’s sexual behavior?  All of these questions need to be answered!  Let’s look at some research data to discover the answers to these questions.



Parental Responsibilities!

Who gives the parents any rights?  Does this come automatically with parenthood?  Does the society we live in give parents any rights on raising children properly?  Or?  Do these rights come from a higher source.  The latter applies if you believe what the Bible teaches.  Before anyone becomes a parent they should seriously consider the responsibility involved.



Laws protect the fundamental rights of the parents.  The Supreme Court has issued the following:



The Supreme Court of the United States has traditionally and continuously upheld the principle that parents have the fundamental right to direct the education and upbringing of their children.  A review of cases taking up the issue shows that the Supreme Court has unwaveringly given parental rights the highest respect and protection possible. 

What follows are some of the examples of the Court’s past protection of parental rights.

 




In Meyer v. Nebraska, the Court invalidated a state law which prohibited foreign language instruction for school children because the law did not “promote” education but rather “arbitrarily and unreasonably” interfered with “the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life...”  The court chastened the legislature for attempting “materially to interfere… with the power of parents to control the education of their own.” This decision clearly affirmed that the Constitution protects the preferences of the parent in education over those of the State. In the same decision, the Supreme Court also recognized that the right of the parents to delegate their authority to a teacher in order to instruct their children was protected within the liberty of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Furthermore, the Court emphasized, “The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right of the individual ... To establish a home and bring up children, to worship G-d (Yahweh) according to his own conscience.”

In 1925, the Supreme Court decided the Pierce v. Society of Sisters case, thereby supporting Meyer’s recognition of the parents’ right to direct the religious upbringing of their children and to control the process of their education.

In Pierce, the Supreme Court struck down an Oregon compulsory education law which, in effect, required attendance of all children between ages eight and sixteen at public schools. The Court declared,

Under the doctrine of Meyer v. Nebraska, we think it entirely plain that the Act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children. [emphasis supplied]



In addition to upholding the right of parents to direct the upbringing and the education of their children, Pierce also asserts the parents’ fundamental right to keep their children free from government standardization.

The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excluded any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right and the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations. [emphasis supplied]

The Supreme Court uses strong language in asserting that children are not “the mere creature of the State.” The holding in Pierce, therefore, preserves diversity of process of education by forbidding the State to standardize the education of children through forcing them to only accept instruction from public schools.

 




The proceeding deals primarily with education concerning the parent’s rights over the states rights.  Let’s review the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution.

What does the Fourteenth Amendment actually say?

 




U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment


Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection

Amendment Text:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article

 




Notice:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

Abridge the privileges? Look at the following and see if parental privileges were abridged in any way.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Colby M. May

The issue of parental rights in the face of government intervention is not a new one in this country


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Colby M. May is senior counsel, heading the Office of Government Affairs, American Center for Law and Justice, Washington, D.C.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


FOOTNOTE: 1; it has simply become a more burning issue as the intrusions have become more pronounced. As long ago as 1923, in a case called Meyer v. Nebraska, FOOTNOTE: 2 the United States Supreme Court rejected the argument that the government's view of what led children to become patriotic and good citizens should prevail over the parents' view. The Court noted that in Plato's Republic the state was to rear children, and "no parent is to know his own child, nor any child his parent."
FOOTNOTE: 3 The Court concluded, however, that the U.S. Constitution was founded upon precisely the opposite principle--that parents and not the government should bear responsibility for raising children: (emphasis Mine!)


"Although such measures have been deliberately approved by men of great genius, their ideas touching the relation between individual and State were wholly different from those upon which our institutions rest; and it hardly will be affirmed that any legislature could impose such restrictions upon the people of a state without doing violence to both letter and spirit of the Constitution.

FOOTNOTE: 4.
Time and again, the Supreme Court has recognized the rights of parents to control the upbringing of their children--rights founded upon the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. As recently as 1990, the Supreme Court observed that, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the fundamental liberty interest of the parent to direct the education of the child is subject to strict scrutiny and cannot be overridden without showing a compelling state interest.

 FOOTNOTE: 5.
On the local level, however, the culture wars are raging around the rights of parents in the health, education, and moral upbringing of their children. (again emphasis Mine) Local government encroachment into areas traditionally the province of parents has resulted in a populist outcry and possible congressional intervention. Some relatively recent examples of current case law serve to illustrate trends in the ongoing battle between parents and the government.

UPBRINGING

In the 1970s and early '80s the "children's rights" movement was in vogue. That line of sociological thinking led to the idea that children should have an equal say in their own upbringing. It was, perhaps, this underlying notion of childhood independence from parental authority and supervision that led the Washington State Supreme Court to find that parents could not punish a minor for involvement with sex and drugs.

 

 FOOTNOTE: 6

 Parents had grounded their eighth-grade daughter because she engaged in premarital sexual activity and smoked marijuana. When the parents continued to have difficulty getting their daughter to obey, they asked for state assistance. While recognizing that the parents had imposed "reasonable rules which were reasonably enforced" upon their daughter, the court nonetheless removed her from the home.


Social mores have guided much of the jurisprudence in the area of parental rights. In the 1960s the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a law banning the sale of pornographic magazines to children under seventeen years of age. In so doing the Court acknowledged that "constitutional interpretation has consistently recognized that the parents' claim to authority in their own household to direct the rearing of their children is basic in the structure of our society."

 FOOTNOTE: 7
Thirty years later, Texas parents were denied the opportunity to see a mandatory assessment test that asked students personal questions concerning their family life, moral values, and religious beliefs. The parents sued and won, alleging that their responsibility for the upbringing and education of their children had been infringed. The Texas Education Agency on appeal asserted that "the right to direct the education and upbringing of your child is not a fundamental right."

 FOOTNOTE: 8 This position by the Texas Education Agency is not unique, but it is consistent with the view of many public educators that parental rights end at the schoolhouse gate.

 




Plainly stated, we are seeing eroding parental rights in relation to their children's upbringing. What many lawmakers fail to see is this; the religious conservative home has a different view then that of a liberal non-conservative home. The conservative home ensconced in religious values taken directly from the Bible, stands in stark contrast to the liberal home without these same values. We then have a clash over cultural differences. Whose opinion or lifestyle do we accept?



The Washington Supreme Court decision has weakened parental rights. When parents cannot punish a child who is taking drugs (a controlled substance) and having sexual intercourse out of wedlock, the parents have lost control of their parental rights!
 


So why is Hawke writing on this subject? I will explain.



Recently we learned of a case where some parents were put to the parental rights test.  A file crossed my desk containing some very serious material.  The people who sent this file to Truth On The Net Dot Com, apparently have had enough!  Judging by the content, they feel they have been silent long enough! 

 

The child, a female now in her late twenties brought allegations of sexual abuse against her father.  The alleged abuse supposedly took place about twelve years earlier.  Truth On The Net Dot Com found out the parents involved in this child’s upbringing were from a strict religious culture that does not allow smoking, drug use, or any sexual promiscuity of any kind.  The parents found out that their daughter was doing all of the above.  The father who believes that all children in the home, male or female must remain virgins until married, discovered she was in violation of this directive.  (Incidentally he took this law from the Bible, Deuteronomy 22:13-21)  She was challenged on several occasions about allegations coming from sources outside of the home, concerning her sexual behavior.  She categorically denied being sexually involved with anyone. The father insisted on the daughter being examined by the family doctor for verification that her hymen was indeed still intact.  Needless to say this caused quite a problem between them.  We were informed that the daughter, rather then agree to an examination, fled the family home. The trouble begins here.



Somewhere along the way the girl was given certain ideas not taught in the home.  Does the woman/girl have a right to do anything with her body?  Is there an age where the female can make her own decisions? While in the home of any family that believes in parental responsibilities, the child must be under their control!  After she leaves the home as an adult, she can do as she pleases!  However, not until then!  The Biblical age of accountability is twenty years old.



We found out the young woman was having difficult times because of her multiple sexual encounters conjoined with a multitude of different sex partners.  This information was revealed to her current live in.  They now have several children, all born out of wedlock.  The live-in male throws her previous lifestyle up in her face and then she blame shifts.  She blames the father and mother for exposing her lifestyle.  She falsely accused her father of sexual abuse.  Blame shifting because she ruined her life and he is the one responsible.  If only he would have remained silent!  Now he stands accused of something he didn’t do!  He must now fight these allegations, because for some, only the accusation is valid, not his rights as a parent to impose rules in his own house.  And, forget about his innocence!  Only the accusation is valid!  We see this all too often in law enforcement circles!  Guilty until proven innocent!  All it takes is the accusation to start the wheels of justice turning. The accused it seems has few rights.  He must counter prove the allegation. (Never mind the accusers character was severely tainted by multiple sexual dalliances.) She is also considered to be a very skilled liar!  However; she must be right if she says so, no matter what!  This is how the system portrays the so-called victim!



We have received some statistics about sexual abuse allegations.

 




Child Molestation

Nation Wide Representation

Over half of molestation-abuse accusations are false,

Yet this crime has the highest conviction rate of any felony charge...

An accusation of molest can start in a divorce/custody battle and lead to juvenile and criminal cases. 
An anonymous accusation of abuse can lead to the removal of your children, to criminal charges, to separation from your spouse, and ultimately to a prison sentence. Your only defense is understanding the system you face and having the most experienced legal representation possible.



It is very easy to be falsely accused of child abuse or child molestation, but it is exceptionally difficult to be exonerated in court. Even though 60% of molestation or abuses charges are false, more of these trials end in the wrongful conviction of the innocent than any other type of criminal case. Widespread media attention has caused a state of hysteria in which people who are accused are presumed guilty. This highly emotional charge tends to destroy the ability of the system to handle such cases objectively.



One charge of molestation or abuse can send a parent, professional or any adult who deals with children to prison for up to eight years. In most cases it is a mandatory sentence and, therefore, many innocent people are now serving long prison sentences.



If you are accused of molestation or abuse, you do not want to risk these odds of being convicted for a crime you did not commit. That is why it is critical that you understand what you face in this type of case and what you must do to protect your freedom, your reputation, and your family.
(Article was untitled in public domain therefore no credit will be given to author.)

 




What did we just read?



The facts are that 60% of those accused of sexual abuse are innocent! That is almost two thirds! That is almost two out of three people being innocent! Some system!



Yes, the rights of parents are being eroded by the legal system everyday. Consider the assault on marriage by the homosexual community (if you can call it that?)  Should America become a Socialist state where the government controls everything?  No!  We must fight against any injustice.  America was founded on certain laws regarding freedom from tyranny. 
We must fight against anyone who would try to destroy the family unit!

This ends part one!  I want to look at Biblical injunctions imposed upon the parents and children according to the word of Abba Yahweh in part two!

PART TWO


Yours in Yahshua, Hawke

 

 

©  Truth on the Net Dot Com 2005-13