Coleman: Its Time Has Come - The Parental Rights Amendment

Protecting Children by Empowering Parents
Arkansas Administrators: “The state needs to take ownership of its children…”
Curtis Coleman, Contributing Author: On the last day of the most recent session of Arkansas’s Legislature, the House Education Committee considered and defeated SB774, commonly known as “the Tim Tebow bill” which, if adopted, would have allowed home-schooled students to participate in public school interscholastic activities.

The bill was opposed by the Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators represented by the group’s Executive Director, Dr. Richard Abernathy, who spoke against the bill.  Dr. Abernathy’s comments should send chills down the spine of any parent, regardless if they have their children in public or private schools or their children are home-schooled.

Dr. Abernathy explained that public school administrators view home schools as a “legalized method of dropping out of school.”  “We have created by law a legalized method whereby parents can pull their kids out of school,” Abernathy said.  “At some point the state needs to take ownership of its children we are allowing to drop out of school.”

Abernathy brushed aside the thousands of home-schooled children in Arkansas who are performing often above their public-schooled peers and focused all of his opposition on those significantly fewer instances where parents get angry with school administrators and, in frustration, pull their children out of school, abusing home school laws in the process. (View all of Abernathy’s testimony - Look for the video for the House Education Committee on 4-1-2011.) It should be noted that Dr. Abernathy’s opposition affected primarily if not only those excellent home-schooled students he brushed aside.

This article is not intended to disparage Arkansas’s public schools. I have good friends who are public school teachers and administrators and members of my family who have taught or do teach in Arkansas public schools. They, and many others like them, have a genuine concern and love for those they teach. And I’ve talked with enough administrators and school board members to know that many of them often feel as if they are little more than regulatory compliancy officers. Probably nowhere in current American culture do we more desperately need to get the federal government off of our backs and out of our personal lives than in our public schools.

With public schools in America now experimenting with “gender education” and the United Nations advocating and publishing public school guidelines for “Sexuality Education,” the view expressed by Dr. Abernathy brings the issue too close to home to overlook any longer.

The time has come for the Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

SECTION 1
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

SECTION 2
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.

SECTION 3
No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children has been recognized and upheld for centuries. But there are dark clouds on the horizon.

According to ParentalRights.org, “Today parental rights are coming under assault from federal judges who deny or refuse to recognize these rights. Adding further danger to the child-parent relationship, international law seeking to undermine the parental role is advancing on the horizon. Together, these threats are converging to create a ‘perfect storm’ that looms over the child-parent relationship.

“In the early 1980s, a landmark parental rights case reached the Washington State Supreme Court. The case involved 13-year-old Sheila Marie Sumey, whose parents were alarmed when they found evidence of their daughter’s participation in illegal drug activity and escalating sexual involvement. Their response was to act immediately to cut off the negative influences in their daughter’s life by grounding her.

“But when Sheila went to her school counselors complaining about her parent’s actions, she was advised that she could be liberated from her parents because there was ‘conflict between parent and child.’ Listening to the advice she had received, Sheila notified Child Protective Services (CPS) about her situation. She was subsequently removed from her home and placed in foster care.

“Her parents, desperate to get their daughter back, challenged the actions of the social workers in court. They lost. Even though the judge found that Sheila’s parents had enforced reasonable rules in a proper manner, the state law nevertheless gave CPS the authority to split apart the Sumey family and take Sheila away.

DANGEROUS PRECEDENT -  “Parental rights are under attack in our nation, with the first threat originating from within the federal court system. As this story illustrates, a growing disregard for parental rights has been spreading within the courts of our nation.

“Across the country, many judges are beginning to deny the vital role of parents in the lives of their children, instead inserting the government into a parental’ role in a child’s life. This dangerous assertion is leading to the severance of the child-parent relationship in numerous instances across the nation—removals that cause unnecessary pain to both children and their parents.

“A thirteen-year-old boy in Washington State was removed from his parents after he complained to school counselors that his parents took him to church too often. His school counselors had encouraged him to call Child Protective Services with his complaint, which led to his subsequent removal and placement in foster care. It was only after the parents agreed to a judge’s requirement of less-frequent church attendance that they were able to recover their son.

HANGING BY A THREAD - “Not all judges hold a low view of parental rights. Some, like Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, believe that parental rights are among the ‘inalienable rights’ of Americans enumerated in the Declaration of Independence but they are finding it increasingly difficult to rule in favor of parental rights when it is not explicitly included in the language of the Constitution.

“In Troxel v. Granville, the last major parental rights case heard by the Supreme Court, Scalia himself voted to deny parental rights the status of an enforceable constitutional right. And other federal court judges are following in his footsteps, citing a mounting belief that no right can be protected by the federal courts unless explicitly stated in the Constitution.

“The dwindling support for parental rights found on the federal level has opened the door to a growing, blatant disregard of parental rights within the lower courts of our nation. Parental rights violations are on the increase across the country, as courts exchange parental involvement for government control in the lives of America’s children.

“The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is hanging by a thread.

“A West Virginia mother was shocked when a local circuit judge and a family court judge ordered her to share custody of her four-year-old daughter with two of the girl’s babysitters. Referring to the sitters as ‘psychological co-parents,’ the justices first awarded full custody to them, only permitting the mother to visit her daughter four times a week at McDonalds. Eventually she was granted primary custody, but forced to continue to share her daughter with the sitters.

“When her case finally reached the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in October 2007, the beleaguered mother was relieved to finally be granted full custody of her daughter.

“In their October 25 opinion Supreme Court justices wrote that they were ‘deeply troubled’ by the utter disregard’ for the mother’s rights. One justice referred to the mother’s right as the ‘paramount right in the world.’

“Chief Justice Robin Davis summed up the case in one simple question.’Why does a natural parent have to prove fitness when she has never been found unfit?’ he asked.

THE THREAT FROM INTERNATIONAL LAW -  “The precarious state of parental rights within our nation is reason enough for serious concern. With cases like these filling the courts, every parent should be concerned about the protection and preservation of their rights.

“But another storm is rapidly forming on the horizon.

“International law that seeks to empower the government to intrude upon the child-parent relationship is becoming an increasing threat. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), a seemingly harmless treaty with dangerous implications for American families, is approaching possible ratification by the United States.
“If this treaty is made binding upon our country, the government would have the power to intervene in any child’s life to advance its definition of ‘the best interests of the child.’ The scenarios that could occur—and are occurring—as a result of this dangerous notion are both manifold and frightening.

“Under the UNCRC, instead of following due process, government agencies would have the power to override your parental choices at their whim because they determine what is in ‘the best interest of the child.’

“In essence, the UNCRC applies the legal status of abusive parents to all parents. This means that the burden of proof falls on the parent to prove to the State that they are good parents—when it should fall upon the State to prove that their investigation is not without cause.

A SHELTER IN THE STORM - “There is only one solution to this approaching storm: a constitutional amendment that places current Supreme Court doctrine protecting parental rights into the explicit language of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment will shelter the child-parent relationship from the coming storm, ensuring that parents have the right to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

“No government, regardless of how well-intentioned it might be, can replace the love and nurture of a parent in the life of a child. Parents care, not because their children are “wards” for whom they are responsible. Parents are willing to brave danger and sacrifice, hardship and heartache to ensure the best for their kids.

Learn more about protecting parental rights through a constitutional amendment and join the campaign now and see which senators have signed on to sponsor this amendment in the U. S. Senate.
---------------
Curtis Coleman is the President of The Curtis Coleman Institute for Constitutional Policy and contributing author to the ARRA News Service.

---

Tags: Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators, Parental Rights Amendment, parentalrights.org, public schools, Richard Abernathy, SB774, Tim Tebow bill, UNCRC, American Culture, Arkansas, Constitution, Education, Religious Freedom, States Rights, Curtis Coleman, The New South Conservative To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!