Here’s a reader quiz. Please read the following two (relatively short) paragraphs and then choose the author/editor from the options provided below.
In the case of parental rights, “[t]he natural right which exists between parents and their children is one of constitutional dimensions.” A parent’s right to uninterrupted access to and care of her child ranks as “far more precious than property rights,” and indeed is a “fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.” . . . the right of the individual to … marry, establish a home and bring up children, [and] to worship God according to the dictates of one’s own conscience” [are] liberty interests entitled to due process.
Accordingly, courts have singled out for heightened protection that “most essential and basic aspect of familial privacy – the right of the family to remain together without the coercive interference of the awesome power of the state.” “This right to the preservation of family integrity encompasses the reciprocal rights of both parent and children. It is the interest of the parent in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children, and of the children in not being dislocated from the emotional attachments that derive from the intimacy of daily association, with the parent.”
Please record in a comment one of the following as your choice:
a. Judge Barbara “Defarge” Walther
b. Abraham Lincoln
c. Justice John Roberts
d. Justice Antonin Scalia
e. Governor Rick “Shoot-First” Perry
f. ACLU of Texas
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
Chai Tea 08.02.08 at 11:24 am
ACLU
Jeny 08.02.08 at 11:26 am
Troxell v. Granville, USSC, June 2000 cites parental rights precedents and case law going back hundreds of years.
The opinions finding in favor of protecting the parental rights of the mother of children involved in a grandparents “rights” (visitation) dispute contain quotes that are equally applicable to the FLDS.
I’ll see if I can find a link to that decision. It is quite worthy of review in protecting ALL parent/child relationships from unwelcome government intrusion.
At one point there was a *very* active group called The Coalition for the Restoration of Parental Rights that fought long and hard against Grandparent Visitation laws. They filed a friend of the court brief in Troxel which also might be a mother-lode of useful precedent and cites. They had a Constitutional scholar by the name of Karen Wyle write the FOC brief.
Now that Troxel all but killed GPV, that group is not as active as it one was, but I certainly know they are no fans of CPS, since that is a favorite tactic of a grandparent who wants to beat up on the grandchild’s parents–call CPS and make false claims of abuse or neglect, then sue them for visitation based on being “unfit”. Grandparents used to do that all the time. Perhaps there might be some CRPR members interested in the efforts to defang CPS? Who knows. I can reach out to see if there is any interest.
Jeny
Jeny 08.02.08 at 11:39 am
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=530&page=57
From Troxel:
“The custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. A law that allows anyone to petition a court for child visitation rights over parental objections unconstitutionally infringes on parents’ fundamental right to rear their children.”
=======
Plurality by: O’Connor
Joined by: Rehnquist, Ginsburg, Breyer
Concurrence by: Souter
Concurrence by: Thomas
Dissent by: Stevens
Dissent by: Scalia
Dissent by: Kennedy
=======
From Parham (cited in Granville)
“[O]ur constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that a child is the mere creature of the State and, on the contrary, asserted that parents generally have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare [their children] for additional obligations. … The law’s concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions. More important, historically it has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children.” 442 U. S., at 602 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). ”
======
” We have long recognized that a parent’s interests in the nurture, upbringing, companionship, care, and custody of children are generally protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399, 401 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 535 (1925); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651 (1972); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 232 (1972); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U. S. 246, 255 (1978); Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602 (1979); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U. S. 745, 753 (1982); Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 720 (1997). As we first acknowledged in Meyer, the right of parents to “bring up children,” 262 U. S., at 399, and “to control the education of their own” is protected by the Constitution, id., at 401. See also Glucksberg, supra, at 761 (Souter, J., concurring in judgment).
=======
“The liberty interest at issue in this case–the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children–is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court. More than 75 years ago, in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399, 401 (1923), we held that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to “establish a home and bring up children” and “to control the education of their own.” Two years later, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 534-535 (1925), we again held that the “liberty of parents and guardians” includes the right “to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.” We explained in Pierce that “[t]he child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” Id., at 535. We returned to the subject in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158 (1944), and again confirmed that there is a constitutional dimension to the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. “It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.” Id., at 166. ”
======================================
“Accordingly, so long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children (i.e., is fit), there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent’s children. See, e.g., Flores, 507 U. S., at 304. ”
=========================================
Note that not ONE of the FLDS mothers or fathers have been found unfit through Due Process.
Not one…..
Toes 08.02.08 at 11:54 am
Without researching, I am going to guess:
a. Judge Barbara “Defarge” Walther
Toes 08.02.08 at 11:55 am
P.S. Do we win anything for a correct answer?
cheese 08.02.08 at 12:28 pm
I’m going to guess Scalia.
able eddy 08.02.08 at 1:04 pm
What the hey, I’ll go for Roberts. May as well distribute the goodies.
Thomas Forguson 08.02.08 at 2:16 pm
My guess is Abraham Lincoln. He’s usually credited with saying a lot of wise stuff.
Kurt Schulzke 08.02.08 at 2:19 pm
And the winner is . . . (drum roll) . . . Chai Tea. It’s from the ACLU’s brief in the Eldorado case. The language was lifted, of course, from a number of appellate and SCOTUS decisions.
Congrats to Chai Tea (isn’t Chai Tea redundant?) who has obviously been doing some heavy reading!
Hannah Rebekah--LDS Christian 08.02.08 at 2:54 pm
I pick ACLU of Texas, the one part “….to worship God according to the dictates of one’s own conscience” sounds a lot like one of the Articles of Faith by Joseph Smith, the 11th one to be exact:
11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
Judge Andrew Napolitano weights in on this video about the Facts in the FLDS and at the end he talks about the rights of parents being protected by the Constitution and how fundamental it is.
http://videobeta.aol.com/video-detail/flds-polygamy-police-raid-arrests-are-criminal-kidnapping/1240032326
Hannah Rebekah--LDS Christian 08.02.08 at 2:56 pm
I was gonna pick ACLU of Texas, the one part “….to worship God according to the dictates of one’s own conscience” sounds a lot like one of the Articles of Faith by Joseph Smith, the 11th one to be exact:
11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
Judge Andrew Napolitano weights in on this video about the Facts in the FLDS and at the end he talks about the rights of parents being protected by the Constitution and how fundamental it is.
http://videobeta.aol.com/video-detail/flds-polygamy-police-raid-arrests-are-criminal-kidnapping/1240032326
N.R. Barlow 08.02.08 at 2:59 pm
what does BLACKS LAW dictionary have to say about the right of parents to teach their children . Their, the parents religion as a fundamental right?
Chai Tea 08.02.08 at 3:27 pm
Welll…you did say to read the links, so I did…
To tell you the truth, until this case I have been anti-ACLU as being too liberal. It’s good to see it working for people and I’m gonna have to revise my opinion!
umm…I think if you asked at any restaurant for “Chai” rather than a specific type of tea (green, oolong, white, flavored, bubble, etc.) they would wonder what you are talking about.
Chai is a specific flavor of tea…
Kurt Schulzke 08.02.08 at 5:02 pm
“Chai” is also the word — if my memory serves — for “tea” in some language or other. It might be Romanian or Czech.
Alexei Promokhov 08.03.08 at 10:48 pm
Russian is one such language; there might be more.
able eddy 08.04.08 at 12:57 am
Cheers for Chai. And strangely enough, for the ACLU. Guess they aren’t all bad, after all.
Hannah Rebekah--LDS Christian 08.04.08 at 11:40 am
Yeah…kudos for the ACLU. It’s nice to see them in a case that deserves their attention.
TxBluesMan 08.04.08 at 8:03 pm
Hannah,
The ACLU has always defended hate groups.
They have defended the KKK in Ohio (SPLC listed hate group).
They have backed the Nazis in Illinois (SPLC listed hate group).
They have stood up for the Black Panthers in Connecticut (SPLC listed hate group).
They have stand behind the FLDS in Texas (SPLC listed hate group).
Karateka 08.04.08 at 8:32 pm
“The ACLU has always defended hate groups.”
Attacking the messenger but not the substance?
TxBluesMan 08.04.08 at 11:46 pm
Nope, just pointing out what Doran was kind enough to point out to me, that the SPLC had listed the FLDS as a hate group no later than 2005, due to the racist beliefs.
TxBluesMan 08.05.08 at 8:28 am
On the subject of the actual post, to terminate parental rights, in Texas it is done by ‘clear and convincing evidence,’ as required by the Troxell case.
The process hasn’t reached that point yet (if it ever does), and the stated goal of CPS is to reunite the families.
Please note that Troxell does not require the early stages to be to the ‘clear and convincing evidence’ standard, and the statutory process in Texas meets the due process requirements of the U.S. Constitution.