When "parens patriae" runs amuck

When “parens patriae” runs amuck

No child left behind! Like all utopian slogans, it sounds good until you look at what it means. The problem is that the slogan only makes sense if the state can become a universal supplier of adequate education — that is, if it can take on the parental role in raising children. It can’t, though, because its relation to the individual is much too formal and undiscriminating. It’s as if someone tried to have children raised by the Post Office or the beta version of some robot or artificial intelligence program. As the Catholic Church and other thinkers independent of the education industry have noted, parents simply can’t be replaced as the primary educators of their children. If the parents don’t do their job, the state might be able to help some children in some ways, but the idea that it can make up for parental failure in all cases, as the slogan demands, is simply wrong.

Since it’s wrong, it leads to destructive policies. One is that young people who don’t belong in school are kept there: reducing “drop-out” rates becomes a goal in itself regardless of whether it makes sense for anyone involved. Another is that the limited capacity of some children to benefit from the education that is offered is denied, so that everyone else is held back by their limitations: Special needs pupils “make majority suffer”. Another problem brought on by the view that nothing is done properly unless it’s done to state standards and under state supervision is that the robotic approach state bureaucracies have adopted in their own dealings with children gets applied universally. The results include anti-spanking laws, various “zero-tolerance” rules, and a cluster of bizarre cases in which Baby pictures are treated as pornography. And a final problem is that since girls are more compliant, and bureaucracies require compliance, the educational system is now engaged in a campaign to abolish boys.

My question: does it matter that none of this helps children, or is it solely important that in principle everything has been seen to, and how it actually works out is unimportant detail? The outlook of those involved in policy seems the latter — whether a policy works or not is less important than that there is a policy. Because policy, and not successful policy, is their business.
Posted by Jim Kalb at April 21, 2003 03:27 PM | Send

Comments

The State does not have a right to come in and violate the parents Constitutional Rights under the Bill of Rights.

The “True and Natural” parents have a legal,spiritual, and moral obligation to raise their children the way they see fit as long as The “True and Natural” parents do not abuse, neglect, or put their children in” risk of harm”.

Posted by: familyrightsadvocate on February 16, 2004 10:24 AM

There have been many cases into Parens Patiae in which many levels of court have upheld the law even against religious practice. In Massachusetts vs. David and Ginger Twitchell (1990, Mass) the parents were Christian Science Church members and believed that there son who had a severe bowel obstruction should not get corrective surgery because it did not fall in what the church said was okay medicle practices. To make a long story short the courts ordered the surgery in a act of parens patriae. Another such case involves Jehovia’s Witnesses who went to fight in courts because they felt that it was against the bill of rights for the government to dictate how they are to raise their children and that the government has no right to take the children. Though they had a good case under Article 1, Section 9 of the constitution where it states that Habeas Corpus (have the body) (IE that each is allowed to own themselves and the government may not claim ownership of a person)may not be suspended but they failed to read further into the section where it also states unless public safety requires it. Even in this case of the Johovah’s witnesses (where in their case they stated that blood transfusions would make their children unable to pass into the eternal life after death(afterlife) ) the state still ruled that: Religious Freedom does not include the right to refuse the medicle treatment of a child facing harm, bad health, or death. In these cases the state has the right to intervene.
There have been many cases where Parens Patriae not only was deemed constitutional but the generally “right” thing to do. Obviously you have deep seeded issues against the government of the United States which is okay under our bill of rights, just remember it is the same laws that allow Parens Patriae that allow you to speak your opinion against the government be glad you do not live in China or you would be killed for what you have said. Further more I would recommend going to barefootsworld.net and researching the constitution which was agreed upon by elected officials of the people. If you want to learn more about Parens Patriae go http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforfreedom/supportpages/L06-ParensPatriae.htm there and learn about it. Maybe next time you feel like stating a opinion it will be a educated one instead of random opinionated statements without cohersion for instance cases where baby pictures have been considered child-pornography. I know of only one case where the such has happened, the reason was the parents were selling the naked pictures of their child to sexual offenders. If you know of other cases where it was just the family sitting at home eating dinner when the FBI busts in and arrests them for their pictures of their naked babies that are kept in the family album that should be stated, though it doesn’t happen that way. Doing research is great and will help you to understand subjects and topics rather than a seemingly title based approach to a issue with no evidence to back it up. (IE you won’t sound like a un-educated hilbilly from west virginia rambling on about how the government screws people) Have a nice day.

Posted by: Will on February 17, 2004 10:30 AM

PS: No offense if you are a uneducated hillbilly from West Virginia. Though I have never been to this site before I found this link on a yahoo search for Parens Patriae. This is a nice site and I will frequent it now.

Posted by: Will on February 17, 2004 10:40 AM

In response to Will’s postings, first let me say that I doubt that denizens of the West Virginia hills are insulted by the condescension of one who writes “medicle” instead of “medical”, along with similar examples that could be cited from his post.

Second, the point of the original post by Jim Kalb was rather simple: the doctrine of “parens patriae” was developed for extreme cases, such as those cited by Will, in which parents might allow (or cause) their children to die or suffer irreparable physical harm. However, the instances in which the government acts as parent have expanded far beyond these cases. In addition to the problem that the government is therefore usurping parental authority, it is not always even clear that the child benefits at all.

Thus, we have parents being told by government schools that they MUST give their son Ritalin in order for him not to be a “problem” at school, when medical experts are divided over the wisdom of this approach, and the school officials who are making this determination have not even been to medical school. Furthermore, the determination of what level of boyish behavior is a “problem” and what is just a minor nuisance to the teachers is subjective and differs from school to school and teacher to teacher. Such a case is then treated as “parents denying medical treatment to their child” if they refuse to go along with the school’s prescription, yet it is hardly a case that is comparable to denying emergency room treatment to a dying child, is it?

The title of the article was “When Parens Patriae Runs Amuck.” From this title, you drew the illogical conclusion that the author was saying that parens patriae always runs amok or is always a bad idea. Try reading and thinking more carefully, and you will see that Mr. Kalb said nothing that you are likely to disagree with.

Posted by: Clark Coleman on February 17, 2004 10:59 AM