Attorney Vivek Sankaran, director of the Child Advocacy Law Clinic and the Child Welfare Appellate Clinic at the University Michigan Law School, has written an excellent piece that was published in The Chronicle for Social Change titled: Termination of Parental Rights: What’s The Rush? Vivek writes that family courts today are too quick to remove parental rights when one parent is deemed "unfit." An attorney himself who has represented children in foster care, Vivek gives an example of a father who was incarcerated for drug usage, and yet stayed involved in his daughter's life for the 8 years he spent in prison, and even helped fund her time in law school, where she was able to finish her degree and graduate. He was able to stay involved in his daughter's life because his parental rights were not severed, which is what happens in most states, sadly, when a parent is deemed "unfit" to parent. Vivek writes that in one state, Utah, the Court of Appeals has questioned the necessity of terminating parental rights so quickly, and that this ruling could serve as a model for other states.
9th Circuit Court Upholds Parents’ Constitutional Rights: Rules Against Arizona Social Workers Removing Children without a Warrant
In what is seen as a victory for parental rights, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of Arizona parents who had their 3 children removed from their home simply because they had taken photos of them after a bath when they were laying on a towel naked. They went to develop the photos at a Walmart, and an employee reported them to the police who were called in to investigate. The police investigation was extensive, including medical and forensic exams of the children looking for sexual abuse, as well as obtaining a warrant to search the family's home, where police "seized all the evidence that might be relevant to a child pornography investigation: computers, printers, photographs, cell phones, undeveloped film, floppy discs, DVDs, CDs, VHS tapes, and cameras." Police found no evidence of wrongdoing, so no charges were filed against the parents, and the children were returned home. However, Arizona social workers with a participating police detective decided to remove the young children from the home anyway, even without a court issued warrant. The children ended up in foster homes, but then later placed with their grandparents, and eventually returned home. The family sued the police detective and settled out of court, but Arizona courts ruled against the family suing the social workers citing state "Qualified Immunity" laws for social workers. The 9th Circuit disagreed, ruling that social workers are not above the law, and cannot violate the 4th and 14th Amendments, and that the courts have consistently ruled that families have a “well-elaborated constitutional right to live together without governmental interference.”
A law professor at the oldest law school in the nation believes that there is no inherent right to parent one's own children. In an interview for CRTV about homeschooling, Professor James G. Dwyer told syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin that: "The reason that parent-child relationship exists is because the state confers legal parenthood on people through its paternity and maternity laws." An investigation into Dwyer's writings and history reveals that this alarming statement was not an exaggerated statement taken out of context or misrepresented by a conservative journalist. Instead, the statement appears to be a foundational core belief held by a man who formerly worked in New York state family courts as a Law Guardian, which is the equivalent of a Guardian ad Litem. Dwyer's writings now influences policy within the family court system. Dwyer argues: "Courts should recognize that newborn babies, much more clearly than birth parents, have fundamental interests at stake in the state's selection of legal parents and, therefore, a much stronger claim to constitutional protection."
California Bill SB18 Wants Authority to Enter Homes to Ensure Parents Comply with State Mandates for Child Care
As we have continued to see increased cases of medical kidnapping and aggressive overreach of the medical system and the marriage of scientific opinion to laws in the United States, parents in California may be seeing a trend first hand that is going to be played out in the rest of the nation. Especially since 134 vaccine mandates have been introduced in this legislative session, indicating the trend for political mandates of your child’s standard of care is nowhere near slowing down. Many have speculated that SB18 is a part of Agenda 21 and Healthy People 2020 -- U.N. and U.S.-based initiatives, respectively, that are designed to corral populations into the inner cities and enforce a standard of care across the board that will implement controls that enable governments to manage portions of the population based on their standards and not the choices of the individual.
Amidst the ever changing, controversial white waters of vaccine safety, parents who choose natural immunity are being targeted by certain members of the medical, legal and public health communities as being guilty of medical neglect. As readers of Health Impact News' MedicalKidnap.com website are fully aware, "medical neglect" is a broad term frequently used against parents who dare to disagree with doctors over the healthcare of their children, and can result in Child Protective Services (CPS) taking the children away from their families by force. The latest example of this usurping of parental rights, which is being pushed and orchestrated by vaccine extremists who insist on pushing a one-size-fits-all approach to immunity, appears in the February edition of the American Journal of Public Health, in an article entitled "Parental Refusal of Childhood Vaccines and Medical Neglect Laws.” The paper, authored by Efthimios Parasidis, JD, M.BE, and Douglas J. Opel, MD, MPH, sets out to examine court cases where vaccine refusal is categorized as "medical neglect" under child welfare laws.
When most people today hear of a terrible child abuse case, their immediate reaction is to call on the government to protect the child and bring justice to bear on the situation. This reliance upon government to enforce child protection, rather than families, churches or non-profit groups, is a relatively new concept in history. As American government has grown ever larger in response to society’s expectations that it should be all children’s protector, Americans have discovered these good intentions have created a system that is becoming more and more intrusive, demanding and corrupt. Parents’ protests, state hearings and local media attention are gradually bringing the public’s attention to a Child Protective Services (CPS) system that has the power to rip children from their parents – and do it without any of the civil rights and protections ALL American citizens are guaranteed. How did a government service meant to protect children become something entirely different? How and when did CPS start – and why are Americans facing its growing power without even basic civil rights?
Mothers from across the country are appalled at the outrageous action of the schools and police, when they seized an 11-year-old child and arrested his mother after he defended medical marijuana during a DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) school drug presentation in Kansas on March 24, 2015. Is this freedom of speech? Does government encouraging children to spy and turn in their parents sound familiar? Sadly, the mother in this case who is a motivational speaker and author may face drug and child endangerment charges. She uses medicinal marijuana to help treat her Crohn's disease. Her son is in temporary protective custody, and the DA is considering removing him long-term from his home.
The Homeschool Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) helps defend parents who chose to educate their children at home from medical tyranny and abuse. They are a non-profit organization that depends on contributions and membership fees to provide free legal representation. They have successfully litigated cases on parental rights all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. HSLDA recently announced they had taken on a case in Virginia where social workers removed two children from the home where they lived with their parents over a fake psychological diagnosis.