posted July 24, 2008 11:07 AM         

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70325

The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to debate two bills that could give the federal government unprecedented control over the way parents raise their children – even providing funds for state workers to come into homes and screen babies for emotional and developmental problems.

The Pre-K Act (HR 3289) and the Education Begins at Home Act (HR 2343) are two bills geared toward military and families who fall below state poverty lines. The measures are said to be a way to prevent child abuse, close the achievement gap in education between poor and minority infants versus middle-class children and evaluate babies younger than 5 for medical conditions.

'Education Begins at Home Act' – HR 2343

HR 2343 is sponsored by Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., and cosponsored by 55 Democrats and 11 Republicans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing the Education Begins at Home Act would cost taxpayers $190 million for state home visiting plus "such sums as may be necessary" for in-hospital parent education.

While the bill may appear to be well-intentioned, Pediatrician Karen Effrem told WND government provisions in HR 2343 to evaluate children for developmental problems go too far.

"The federal definition of developmental screening for special education also includes what they call socioemotional screening, which is mental health screening," Effrem said. "Mental health screening is very subjective no matter what age you do it. Obviously it is incredibly subjective when we are talking about very young children."

While the program may not be mandatory for low-income and military families, there is no wording in the Education Begins at Home Act requiring parental permission for treatment or ongoing care once the family is enrolled – a point that leads some to ask where parental rights end and the government takes over. Also, critics ask how agents of the government plan to acquire private medical and financial records to offer the home visiting program.
"There's no consent mentioned in the bill for any kind of screening – medical, health or developmental," Effrem said. "There are privacy concerns because when home visitors come into the home they assess everything about the family: Their financial situation, social situation, parenting practices, everything. All of that is put into a database."

Effrem said it does not specify whether parents are allowed to decline evaluations, drugs or treatment for their children once they are diagnosed with developmental or medical conditions.

"How free is someone who has been tagged as needing this program in the case of home visiting – like a military family or a poor family?" she asked. "How free are they to refuse? Even their refusal will be documented somewhere. There are plenty of instances where families have felt they can't refuse because they would lose benefits, be accused of not being good parents or potentially have their children taken away."

When WND asked Effrem how long state-diagnosed conditions would remain in a child's permanent medical history, she responded:

"Forever. As far as I know, there isn't any statute of limitations. The child's record follows them through school and potentially college, employment and military service."

Effrem said conflicts could also arise when parents do not agree with parenting standards of government home visitors.

"Who decides how cultural tolerance is going to be manifested?" she asked. "There's some blather in the language of the bill about having cultural awareness of the differences in parenting practices, but it seems like that never applies to Christian parents."

'Providing Resources Early for Kids'

The Pre-K Act, or HR 3289, is sponsored by Rep. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, and cosponsored by 116 Democrats and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla. Estimated to cost $500 million for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013, the bill provides funds for state-approved education. Government workers would reach mothers and fathers in the hospital after a baby has been delivered to promote Pre-K programs.

"They give them information about Child Care Resource and Referral Network so they can get the child into a preschool or daycare that follows the state standards and get the mom working as quickly as possible," she said. "It's always that sort of thing: It's a list of resources, it's intruding on parental autonomy and authority and it's not necessarily accurate or welcome information."

While parents may choose to be involved in preschool programs, Effrem said the Pre-K Act poses similar concerns about government trumping parents' rights.

"Once they are involved, they don't have any say over curriculum," she said. "There's plenty of evidence of preschool curriculum that deals with issues that have nothing to do with a child's academic development – like gender, gender identity, careers, environmentalism, multiculturalism, feminism and all of that – things that don't amount to a hill of beans as far as a child learning how to read."

Effrem said the Pre-K Act extends a "really messed-up K-12 system" to include even younger, more vulnerable children.

"This is an expansion of the federal government into education when there really is no constitutional provision for it to do so."

Note: Concerned individuals may contact their representatives and senators.

posted July 25, 2008 12:04 AM         

In Britain, if your children turn up their noses at ethnic foods, the child can be branded a racist.

Toddlers who dislike spicy food 'racist'
Toddlers who turn their noses up at spicy food from overseas could be branded racists by a Government-sponsored agency.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politi cs/education/2261307/Toddlers-who-dislike-spicy-food-racist,-say-report.html

Raising children according to government regulations and policies has long been the dream of governments. It seems that even in America, the government is coming after your children.

posted July 25, 2008 12:45 AM         

The Education Begins At Home Act (H.R. 2343) establishes a program that brings the government into homes by establishing and growing programs that would bring unelected government officials into homes to inspect the family environment.

Background:

H.R. 2343 is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Despite the seemingly homeschool friendly title, the Education Begins at Home Act expands unelected government officials’ agenda into homes. While it is based on the accurate assumption that almost all children learn first and best at home, H.R. 2343 seeks to insert the government into that process. H.R. 2343’s stated goal is to expand Head Start’s1 Early Home Visitation program to “increase school readiness, child abuse and neglect prevention, and early identification of development and health delays, including potential mental health concerns, and for other purposes.” In practice, this will mean government officials will be in hospitals and homes implementing an agenda established by unelected federal officials whose standards may strongly offend many Americans.

Although these “home visitation” services are voluntary, once they begin, they are to occur “not less frequently than a monthly basis.” Unfortunately this wording seems to disregard the desires of the child’s parents. These entanglements are a good example of how strings are attached to so many well-intentioned government programs that end up either impotent or harmful to those involved.

In addition, this bill includes some other concerning goals. For example, government officials are invited in the home by the parents and yet go in looking for deficiencies in how the parents have chosen to raise their child. They look for signs of child abuse, “developmental delays,” and evaluate the child’s “behavioral skills.” All of this is done under the pretense of increasing the parents’ awareness of governmental services.

Education Begins At Home: A Second Mortgage

The first line of H.R. 2343 states that its purpose is “To expand programs…” This bill takes Head Start (see footnote number 2), an already costly program, and expands it by $400 million. Furthermore, looking at the precedent that Head Start already has set, one can see that it will just continue to expand government control into families’ homes at an ever growing costs to the tax payer.

Education Begins At Home: Nanny State

Section 5 of H.R. 2343 expands the “Head Start” Act by stating that the government will now “provide additional services to parents to support their role as parents (including training in parenting skills, basic child development, and sensitivity to cultural variations in parenting norms and attitudes toward formal supports).”2 The government will “develop and implement a systematic procedure for transitioning children and parents from an Early Head Start program into a Head Start program or another local early childhood education program.”3 This creates a government program that exists to perpetuate another government program. This will create a system that makes it easier for the government to expand its authority from 1st though 12th grade students in the public school building into the homes of people with children under the age of 3.

HSLDA is also concerned that the content of the “help” provided by these “early development programs” will be open to politicization. For example: who is going to determine what the “strategies for helping families coping with crisis”4 are most effective? Is it going to be an unelected government official who has a social agenda? There is no protection against the inherent politics involved in government work. This could be especially volatile when the government is advising a pregnant mother regarding “the relationship of health and well-being of pregnant women to prenatal and early child development.”5 In this instance, a pro-abortion unelected official could counsel a new mother to adopt his or her version of “family planning.” This “service” could very well become an arena for many significant political battles, and giving federal officials a soapbox that could be used to promote controversial “alternative” lifestyles or even abortion.

Education Begins At Home: Who Cares About the Non-Profits?

In H.R. 2343 Section 9 another door is opened to rampant politicization: government classes on how to raise one’s children. Although this program is voluntary for the family, it is not voluntary for the hospital where the baby is born. Every hospital, military hospital, and birth center would be required to request parents to participate in a parenting class.6 This class will include “strategies for caring for [the] infant’s social, emotional, and physical needs.”7 In the political culture that pervades government offices, hospitals could be forced to provide classes that they fundamentally disagree with. Catholic hospitals, for example, could be forced to request that their patients to take classes that advocate abortion and birth control. In this legislation the hospitals are required to request that their patients take these classes. With the content of these classes being unclear, unelected government officials will be left to determine what a healthy family looks like. This is a recipe for disaster.

Conclusion:

This legislation is a huge spending bill which creates a nanny state where the government tries to teach people how to be parents. In the process, they establish requirements that every hospital provide this training without placing limits on what is going to be taught. Controversial or politicized content may be required at some point that may interfere with, for example, a religious hospital’s beliefs. H.R. 2343 opens a Pandora’s Box by asking the government to become the expert in parenting, while not protecting the religious organizations that might be caught in the crossfire.

Endnotes
1 “Head Start is a national program that promotes school readiness by enhancing the social and cognitive development of children through the provision of educational, health, nutritional, social and other services to enrolled children and families.” (US Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and Families, About the Office of Head Start: Mission.

2 S. 667 Sec 5 (1)

3 S. 667 Sec 5 (1)

4 S. 667 Sec 5 (vi)

5 S. 667 Sec 5 (vii)

6 S. 667 Sec 9 b(2)

7 S. 667 Sec 9 b(2)

posted July 25, 2008 03:30 AM         

The Head Start program is free freaking pre-school/daycare for low-income people like(for example haha) divorced single mothers who are trying to work or go to school (a-HEM), and a program that will COME TO THE DOOR and pick up your poor neglected children and give them a safe, happy, sunny, smoke free environment to play with other children, have adults READ to them and sit with them while they create art, and lead them in musical games, and serve them meals... if for another example, you are too much of pathetic druggie loser to get your ass out of bed to care for them. That's what the "head start" is about. There are millions of kids out there living in **** hole drug houses where the drug dealing brings in just enough to pay the dump's rent and if there are organizations out there that actually notice these kids are alive before they are utterly destroyed, there is a chance they can claw their way through school and stop the endless cycle of breeding idiots taking over our world.
The community action agency in my area that sponsors the Head Start program is an amazing organization with amazing and dedicated people working to heal the community. I began serving on the policy council for Head Start and now serve on the board of directors of the community action agency. The good things these people do for the community and the people in it give me faith in humanity and in our world. These people don't sit around complaining about things, THEY WORK TO MAKE THINGS BETTER.
The people who write these articles incite hate and fear and promote ignorance.

Parents can stay every minute of every day in the classroom if they choose. Parents are practically BEGGED to stay in the classroom and "volunteer", which I did quite often, and volunteering basically entails watching the fun activities and, over this past winter, sitting on the floor while attention starved children fight for a space on your lap and beg for hugs. Every time I sat down (and I am NOT EXAGGERATING) I would end up sitting with both legs out so that two children could sit on each of my legs with one sitting in front of me, snuggled up to me. Twice there was also a little girl behind me "braiding" my hair.
Your tax dollars are spent funding field trips to the family museum (science and music exhibits), the local botanical center, the pumpkin-patch petting zoo with educational tour for fall, very small teacher salaries, and the building, transportation, and meal costs.
The policy council and head of the Head Start program spent some time recently discussing how to stretch the government funding to afford even MORE nutritious additions to meals that already beat any school lunch I was ever served growing up. The kids serve each other raw broccoli with tongs out of family size serving bowls on the tables, for example. The program had been providing individual packets of ranch dressing as a "dip" to encourage children who NEVER EVEN SEE A VEGETABLE AT HOME to try the vegetables. One of the changes will be low-fat and yogurt dips. This is just one very small and obvious example of how these organizations have the well-being of the children as a future generation in mind. The community action agency also has programs for the elderly. This is the same agency that brings "Meals on Wheels" and funds senior centers.

I've went to events where inner city women from Chicago who were crack addicts with 5 kids found support and assistance through all of these extra organizations they were introduced to, and through all of these intertwining supports in the community these women were able to better themselves and their situations and become productive members of the community and more importantly, productive members of their own family, setting an example that will affect generations.

**** those lying assholes who wrote those articles. They are evil, manipulative s.o.b.'s who are out to destroy people's faith in something beautiful and healthy for our world. Too bad they never went to Head Start.

I hope Randall's censor software is working.

posted July 25, 2008 04:24 AM         

My letter of appreciation for the beautiful and amazingly supportive program is below.

Rosie and I have been in the Healthy Families program for over 3 ½ years. I contacted Healthy Families when Rosie was only 6 months old and thankfully they accepted me into their program even though I chose not to participate when Rosie was first born. When I became a single mother due to a violent spouse, visits from Healthy Families helped me through a difficult time and helped me to focus on being the kind of parent I had planned on being before my life situation was altered. With the extreme difficulty of dealing with an assault, a divorce, being a first time parent and being suddenly a single parent, Healthy Families and Lisa’s weekly visits made it possible for me to redirect my focus every week to being the kind of mother Rosie deserved. The stress and responsibility of single parenthood had forced me to give up my previous voracious reading on the subject of parenthood and at times when I would have given up, another visit complete with quick and easy to read papers and pamphlets on my daughter’s age of monthly development would get me back on task.
The program also helped me in more concrete ways, providing diapers in times of need, a variety of developmentally correct educational toys that I wished for but could not afford, nomination to the Wish List program which provided tires that were a necessity for our car, and many informative videos on parenting that made learning easier and more convenient. The social activities and dinners provided great stress relief for me and fun and companionship for Rosie, which is so important to a single child in a single parent household. The events also provided prizes that were very important to us, such as two large comforters for our beds. Other items Healthy Families helped us with include a single bed for Rosie and two new pillows.
Overall, the program helped Rosie have more of the mother she deserved by reducing my stress level and increasing my education. Over time, Lisa became a part of our family and someone neither I nor my daughter will ever forget. This program gave me the second greatest gift I could ever receive, (the first is Rosie, of course), it helped me to remember to capture the precious moments of my daughter’s childhood that I would have never been able to get back or replace.

posted July 25, 2008 12:08 PM         

Anyone who actually reads this (and don't unless you want to read about some nut stripping children and laying them spread eagle on desks to "manipulate" their genitals) can see that a woman (with nursing credentials) turned out to be some child molester freak. Seems a lot of freaks get by a lot of people in a lot of places. It has nothing to do with the program or the government and the best case that can be made is the proof that the program misses out on the highest quality employees and instructors due to the low budget for teacher salaries.

The community action agency devotes a huge amount of time and energy to fund raising (to provide extra activities and books and toys for the kids for Head Start for example, among dozens of other things) so that every dollar possible goes to employee salaries so they can keep the highest hiring standards as possible, and people are hired from within the community and, whenever possible, from volunteers within the program that are well-known to staff which cuts down on situations with unknown freaks who simply have credentials.

posted July 25, 2008 07:44 PM         

WTF is the world trying to do?

First they try to dictate compulsory vaccinations and now they wanna tell us how to bring up our kids on a personal and educational level?

They can %£&£$*£%£%£%£% OFF!

It is barbaric to send your child to school too early... my 2 eldest sons didn't even see a school till they were 5 and my youngest son is a sensitive 2 year old who has never seen a needle, jab, antibiotic nor damn school.

Maybe the Government should just busy themselves giving birth to the "perfect child" who will then turn into a "monstrous adult" so we can blame them!

Then we can get on with deciding our childs rights through that increasingly rare thing called FREE WILL.

In the UK from this September it is compulsory to send your child to school at the age of 18 months or something just as ridiculous, for FIVE days a week.

Watch this space and watch children's education and ability to create and then turn creating into learning turn to £$%&.

Makes me so upset and angry... l feel like beating the crap out of them all for being such dangerous ignoramus's.

posted July 27, 2008 12:24 AM         

But as just an example of how wrong these programs can get...
http://www.reason.com/news/show/27924.html

quote:

---

When they got home, Anthony was still complaining of some foot pain, so Anderson took her son to the emergency room at Terre Haute's Union Hospital. She assumed that if they didn't find anything in his foot, they'd bandage him up and send him home. But Anthony, as kids are prone to do, got his words a little mixed up. A doctor heard him saying something about stepping on "a needle" at his dad's. Anderson overheard a doctor say something about calling Child Protective Services (CPS). Worried, she called in her mother, Pamela Taliaferro. Anthony's grandma came to the hospital and, in front of a doctor, asked Anthony, "Now, what happened back at your papa's?"

"I stepped on a needle, Granny-you know, the kind of needle you hammer in a board."

While they were waiting for CPS to show up at the hospital, a doctor called Anthony's dad and asked him what had happened to his son. Dwayne Mitchell told them his son had stepped on a nail. "When the doctor hung up the phone with Anthony's dad," Anderson recalls, "I heard him say pretty loudly, '**** !' He already had called in CPS, and now he was realizing there wasn't any reason for it. I know what they were thinking. They instantly make the leap: black-needle-drugs-AIDS."

Anderson's hunch proved correct. The hospital had already given Anthony a dose of AZT, the DNA-chain terminator widely prescribed as an anti-AIDS drug

---

posted July 27, 2008 03:28 AM         

Regarding Dervish's post...
I can't knowledgeably say anything for or against Child Protective Services. I obviously agree that no one has the right to demand and enforce that someone's child be placed on Ritalin or some other medication. I simply don't believe that the particular organizations targeted in the introductory thread articles are minions of some larger conspiratorial government evil, any more than a local school would be.

In general conversation on the topic...
I belong to the "Personally, I'd rather home-school" (in a perfect world) but I'm also realistic enough to see that just because a certain amount of innocent people get put in jail every year doesn't mean that we should not have jails. The same concept applies to this situation. People need to spend more time and effort at improving situations so that innocent people are not persecuted rather than waving torches around at some invisible and intangible conspiracy. Does anyone really think that being against, bitching about, or "voting" against some bill is going to make a difference in a nation where the government is actually "out to get you"? Whoever believes the government is that against you... if you really believe it, why aren't you honing your skills and stockpiling your weapons for the revolution? I mean, really? Ohhh... "we have to spread the message!" that the government is out to get you! Yeah right. Since when is this some unknown great secret, some unique school of thought that has never been thought before?

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out (in)
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're all doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
Ah

ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
all right, all right, all right

(Beatles lyrics)

Get any large group of people together and there is a greater concentration of idiots. That's just life. And aggressive and power hungry people are naturally drawn to politics, and power corrupts, and there is always some ignorant imbecile who "thinks he is trying to help", who will **** something up and be too stupid and self-centered to see what he is doing to the people he so "gallantly" is "saving". This doesn't mean we should rally against and destroy organizations that actually are making a positive difference in the world simply because some human fool (or utter freak masquerading as a human) who is affiliated with the organization, eventually always does something that can be twisted to taint the entire organization and their good works.

Speaking to the air, collective consciousness, or whoever is listening...
Instead of spending too much energy in delving into what is wrong with the world and what might be wrong with the world in a minute, energy should be spent in taking action to heal what we already know is wrong. What have you done this year to make a difference? What have you done that gave you that feeling inside that you did something good... something worth doing?

posted July 27, 2008 01:36 PM         

Parents face a sinister threat, which is controlled, funded and supported by every state child welfare agency. Child Protective Service (CPS) agencies abuse their federally endorsed authority to destroy the lives of close to 1,000 children each and every day of the year.

Kidjacked a parental guide to CPS contains legal resources, case law, family rights news and actual family court cases. You will find stories of courage, suffering and occasionally even success. Don't miss our archive section.

What's New at Kidjacked?

Answer the Call!

Volunteers Needed
Find out how you can help today!
Be a voice for all of our children.

Family Support Connections
Join forces. There is strength in numbers. Find support, join a class action lawsuit, attend a workshop, meet with your legislator, testify before congress -- in short make a Family Support Connection.
Updated July 7, 2008

Fraud and Deception
New Jersey mom fights back against unfair treatment by DYFS system. Requests assistance.
Posted June 14, 2008

Good News for Reform?
Pacific Justice Institute issued a press release yesterday regarding a recent California Supreme Court ruling, which could lead to unintended results for families...
Posted June 5, 2008

FLDS: Mass Kidjacking
Have you been following the Eldorado, Texas case, in which CPS agents removed 437 children from their parents care? The entire circus of events is simply shocking!
Posted April 28, 2007

Strategies For Winning Over A Dirty Social Worker
Advice to parents dealing with unethical social workers. Don't let the introduction or the amateur nature of this video fool you. This video provides some of the best advice you can find. Do take the time to watch this video -- be sure to take notes.
Updated March 14, 2008

Free Reports and Educational Materials
Concerned about child rights? Foster care and the general state of child protective services? You may find these reports and educational materials helpful in your fight. These reports are totally free downloadable pdf files.
Updated May 25, 2008

Child Abuse is a Crime
Arrest CPS!
Kids For Money
Valuable Information You Need to
Fight CPS and Win!

Warning! The Truth About
Child Protective Services

Summer Special!
Order Now - Save $8.00
The Constitution and CPS
This test is used as a training tool to teach caseworkers about your rights under the law and how to do their job, without violating your rights. Take the test and see how well you do...
Posted January 12, 2008

The Rest of the Story
Bill Sullivan's daughter was ten when a visit to the hospital turned their world upside down. DHS Kidjacked his daughter from the hospital and had no intention of letting her go -- ever.
Posted January 12, 2008

Join the Kidjacked Yahoo Group
Created as a place to share information, brain storm solutions to the issues parents face daily. Kidjacked is a place for parents who have lost their children or are in danger of losing their children, to get advice and not feel so alone.
Updated January 15, 2008

Family Plan of Action
Emergencies happen all the time, we do our best to prepare for them. While you may be prepared for the next hurricane, blizzard or flood have you made preparations to protect the most precious thing in your life... your children?
Posted January 4, 2008

Our Voice in Washington
If you are mad as hell and tired of being pushed around, now is the time to stand up and speak out. If you are working a case, be sure to check out the state pages [select "State information... under calendar] for current information. If you know of a news report that is not listed in the Kidjacked News section, be sure to send it in.
Posted June 19, 2007

Defend Your Family and Win
Courtroom Demeanor
When facing the courtroom always put your best foot forward. Remember first impressions count. Use these helpful tips to make your best impression on your day in court.
15 Helpful Tips
When the Child Protective Service comes to your door, take it seriously. Never think that it can't happen to you because you're a good parent. It can, and has happened to millions of good parents.

posted July 27, 2008 01:39 PM         

Executive Summary
State child protective services (CPS) agencies are charged with protecting children from abuse and neglect. CPS is widely viewed as a system in crisis. In many cases, CPS is not protecting children from abuse and is not supporting families that need help. Nationwide, most resources devoted to child protection are being used in an attempt to screen, investigate and substantiate the millions of abuse reports received by states each year, leaving few resources for services to troubled families. As a result, the CPS system is not addressing the conditions associated with child maltreatment, including poverty, single parenthood, substance abuse and social isolation. Most states respond to reports of child maltreatment with a standardized investigation, regardless of the severity of the alleged abuse. Accordingly, CPS is criticized for not being sufficiently proactive in some cases, and for being overzealous and intrusive in others.

In response to these problems, a new vision of CPS is emerging among child welfare experts and policymakers. A few states are attempting to link CPS with community-based family support systems and to give CPS agencies the flexibility to respond to less serious cases of child maltreatment with an assessment of family needs, rather than an investigation that focuses only on identifying perpetrators and fixing blame. Underlying this new vision of CPS is the premise that the best way to protect children is to support and nurture families and the communities in which they live.

Reports of child abuse and neglect have increased significantly during the past three decades. Most reports of child abuse concern neglect, as opposed to physical or sexual abuse. Approximately 1,000 children die each year as the result of severe abuse. Although incidents of abuse have increased, the percentage of reports investigated by CPS agencies has declined. The total yearly cost of these investigations nationwide is estimated at approximately $2.9 billion.

State legislatures play an important role in CPS. They define child abuse and neglect, mandate who must report child maltreatment, structure and appropriate funds for child welfare agencies, and prescribe CPS functions. State law regarding CPS is influenced by federal funding statutes that prescribe standards for identifying, reporting and responding to child abuse.

The functions of CPS are remarkably uniform from state to state. CPS agencies accept and investigate reports of child maltreatment. Investigated cases are classified as substantiated or unsubstantiated. Substantiated reports may result in some form of coercive state action and usually are placed on a central child abuse registry. CPS agencies also deliver some services to families, including intensive family preservation services designed to resolve crises and prevent out-of-home placements of children. The current CPS system has been criticized for being overly rigid, crisis-oriented, fragmented, isolated and unresponsive to the needs of troubled families. These problems result partly from an increasing number of abuse reports in the wake of broadened definitions of maltreatment, expanded lists of mandatory reporters of child maltreatment, increases in poverty, a growing number of single-parent families and an increase in substance abuse. Some observers are concerned that welfare reform will lead to even higher rates of child abuse and neglect, further straining the CPS system.

Most recent initiatives in comprehensive CPS reform consist of several key components:

Planning for legislative change. Planning for CPS reform involves determining the views and concerns of a wide array of stakeholders, including families and CPS workers, and identifying community values.

Use of family-centered assessments. Central to CPS reform is legislative authorization for flexibility in responding to reports of abuse and neglect. On the one hand, serious criminal offenses against children remain subject to investigation and prosecution. On the other hand, CPS may respond to less serious allegations with an assessment of family strengths and needs and an offer of services.

Changes to the central abuse registry. Registries are controversial because they often label caretakers as abusers, regardless of the severity of the maltreatment or the circumstances under which it occurred. Legislatures in some states are limiting the use of central registries, in keeping with the new role of CPS as a family-serving agency.

Clarification of the role of law enforcement agencies in the investigation of child abuse. In many cases, CPS reform legislation addresses a lack of coordination between police and CPS agencies in the investigation of criminal child abuse. Some states are referring child protective investigations to law enforcement agencies, freeing CPS agencies from the role conflict inherent in being both investigator and helper.

Collaboration between CPS agencies and communities. Legislatures in a few states are calling for partnerships between CPS agencies and neighborhood-based systems of family support, such as schools, churches, community organizations and mental health providers. The premise underlying these initiatives is that the responsibility for child protection should be shared by the various individuals and organizations that are in contact with children and families.

Implementation strategies. Some states are experimenting with CPS reform through pilot programs, while others have enacted immediate statewide change. The choice between these two implementation strategies depends upon the political environment, the capacity of the CPS system and other factors.

Outcome evaluation. Legislators need information about the results of experiments in CPS reform to make intelligent decisions about expanding, continuing or terminating new programs. Accordingly, most state legislatures that have enacted CPS reform have included an evaluation component.

This publication examines the CPS reforms enacted by six states--Florida, Missouri, Iowa, Virginia, North Dakota and Hawaii. Each state took a somewhat different approach to the reform components previously identified.

In planning for CPS reform, Florida embarked on a lengthy and comprehensive effort to obtain the views of a wide array of stakeholders. The resulting family services response system features a nonadversarial approach to most reports of child maltreatment, decentralization of many CPS functions, delegation of criminal fact-finding activities to local law enforcement agencies, promotion of partnerships between CPS and local communities and an evaluation of specified outcome measures. Florida also eliminated classification of abuse reports as either substantiated or unsubstantiated, and abolished use of the central registry for background screening.

The Missouri legislature authorized a pilot program for experimentation with a dual-track program, in which the state CPS agency can refer abuse reports to either an investigative track or an assessment track, with the option to reassign cases from one track to the other if circumstances warrant. Assessment cases in pilot areas no longer are classified as probable cause or insufficient probable cause, nor are they placed on the central registry. CPS and law enforcement agencies jointly investigate cases of serious abuse in accordance with local protocols. Like Florida, the Missouri legislation directs CPS to collaborate with local communities to better protect children from maltreatment. Finally, the law calls for an independent evaluation of the pilot program.

Iowa began its reform initiative with an approach to abuse reports that combines elements of a family-centered assessment and an investigation. The initial legislation authorized a pilot program; legislation enacted in 1997 provides for statewide implementation of the new approach by mid-1998. Iowa also changed the central registry to exclude cases of minor physical injury that are considered isolated and unlikely to recur.

North Dakota enacted a single-track CPS system, in which all reports of child maltreatment are subject to an assessment, rather than an investigation. The legislation also eliminated classification of reports in terms of probable cause; however, assessment cases still are entered on the central registry.

Virginia recently enacted a pilot program similar to Missouri's, featuring a dual-track approach to abuse reports, elimination of report classification, joint investigations with law enforcement agencies, a call for the use of community resources in responding to child abuse and neglect, and an evaluation of outcomes.

Hawaii passed reform legislation authorizing the creation of two neighborhood places to serve as the base for multidisciplinary teams that could include CPS workers, health professionals and community educators. In response to reports of child maltreatment, these teams will assess the strengths and needs of families, identify desired outcomes and formulate action plans.

Although many of the legislative initiatives discussed in this report have not yet been fully implemented or evaluated, research in Missouri and Florida indicates that the CPS reforms in those states are yielding positive results. In both states, families respond more positively to assessments that attempt to identify strengths, needs and resources than to traditional child protective investigations. CPS agencies are including family members in the process of planning and delivering services and are linking families with community-based resources. Particularly important is the finding that these reforms have not compromised child safety.

For additional information regarding Child Welfare, please contact the Child Welfare Project at 303/364-7700.

Back to the Child Welfare Home Page

© 2008 National Conference of State Legislatures, All Rights Reserved

Denver Office: Tel: 303-364-7700 | Fax: 303-364-7800 | 7700 East First Place | Denver, CO 80230 | Map
Washington Office: Tel: 202-624-5400 | Fax: 202-737-1069 | 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515 | Washington, D.C. 20001

posted July 27, 2008 01:43 PM         

If you watch much television, you've probably heard of a product called Mike's Hard Lemonade.

And if you ask Christopher Ratte and his wife how they lost custody of their 7-year-old son, the short version is that nobody in the Ratte family watches much television.

The way police and child protection workers figure it, Ratte should have known that what a Comerica Park vendor handed over when Ratte ordered a lemonade for his boy three Saturdays ago contained alcohol, and Ratte's ignorance justified placing young Leo in foster care until his dad got up to speed on the commercial beverage industry.

Even if, in hindsight, that decision seems a bit, um, idiotic.

Ratte is a tenured professor of classical archaeology at the University of Michigan, which means that, on a given day, he's more likely to be excavating ancient burial sites in Turkey than watching "Dancing with the Stars" - or even the History Channel, for that matter.

The 47-year-old academic says he wasn't even aware alcoholic lemonade existed when he and Leo stopped at a concession stand on the way to their seats in Section 114.

"I'd never drunk it, never purchased it, never heard of it," Ratte of Ann Arbor told me sheepishly last week. "And it's certainly not what I expected when I ordered a lemonade for my 7-year-old."

But it wasn't until the top of the ninth inning that a Comerica Park security guard noticed the bottle in young Leo's hand.

"You know this is an alcoholic beverage?" the guard asked the professor.

"You've got to be kidding," Ratte replied. He asked for the bottle, but the security guard snatched it before Ratte could examine the label.

Mistake or child neglect? An hour later, Ratte was being interviewed by a Detroit police officer at Children's Hospital, where a physician at the Comerica Park clinic had dispatched Leo - by ambulance! - after a cursory exam.

Leo betrayed no symptoms of inebriation. But the physician and a police officer from the Comerica substation suggested the ER visit after the boy admitted he was feeling a little nauseated.

The Comerica cop estimated that Leo had drunk about 12 ounces of the hard lemonade, which is 5% alcohol. But an ER resident who drew Leo's blood less than 90 minutes after he and his father were escorted from their seats detected no trace of alcohol.

"Completely normal appearing," the resident wrote in his report, "... he is cleared to go home."

But it would be two days before the state of Michigan allowed Ratte's wife, U-M architecture professor Claire Zimmerman, to take their son home, and nearly a week before Ratte was permitted to move back into his own house.

And if you think nothing so ludicrous could happen to your family, maybe you should pay a little less attention to who's getting booted from "Dancing with the Stars" and a little more to how the state agency responsible for protecting Michigan's children is going about its work.

Doing their duty Almost everyone Chris Ratte met the night they took Leo away conceded the state was probably overreacting.

The sympathetic cop who interviewed Ratte and his son at the hospital said she was convinced what happened had been an accident, but that her supervisor was insisting the matter be referred to Child Protective Services.

And Ratte thought the two child protection workers who came to take Leo away seemed more annoyed with the police than with him. "This is so unnecessary," one told Ratte before driving away with his son.

But there was really nothing any of them could do, they all said. They were just adhering to protocol, following orders.

And so what had begun as an outing to the ballpark ended with Leo crying himself to sleep in front of a television inside the Child Protective Services building, and Ratte and his wife standing on the sidewalk outside, wondering when they'd see their little boy again.

A vain rescue mission Child Protective Services is the unit of the Michigan Department of Human Services responsible for intervening when someone suspects a child is being abused, neglected or endangered. Its powers include the authority to remove children from their homes and transfer them to foster parents who answer only to the state.

By law, CPS officials are forbidden to discuss the particulars of any investigation.

But Mike Patterson, Child and Family Services director for the Wayne County district that includes Comerica Park, said that in general his agency's discretion is limited once police obtain a court order to remove a child from the parental home - usually authorized, as in Leo's case, by a juvenile court referee responding to a police officer's recommendation.

"Once the court has authorized a child's removal," Patterson told me, "we cannot return the child to the parental custody" until the court has OK'd it.

But that doesn't explain why CPS refused to release Leo to the custody of two aunts - one a social worker and licensed foster parent - who drove all night from New England to take custody of their nephew.

Chris Ratte's sisters, Catherine Miller and Felicity Ratte, left Massachusetts at 10:30 the night of the fateful lemonade purchase after the police officer who'd reluctantly requested a removal order told Ratte the state would likely jump at the chance to place Leo with responsible relatives. But when the two women arrived at the CPS office early Sunday, a caseworker explained they would not be allowed to see Leo until they had secured a hotel room.

The sisters quickly complied. But by the time they returned to CPS around 10:30 a.m., their nephew had been taken to an undisclosed foster home, where he would remain until a preliminary court hearing the following afternoon.

By that Monday, April 7, when Ratte and his wife returned for a meeting with Latricia Jones, the CPS caseworker assigned to their case, no one in the family had been able to talk to Leo for a day and a half.

More investigation needed At a hearing later that day, Jones recommended that Leo remain in foster care until she had completed her investigation, a process she estimated would take several days. It was only after the assistant attorney general who represented CPS admitted that the state was not interested in pursuing the case aggressively that juvenile referee Leslie Graves agreed to release Leo to his mother - on the condition that Ratte himself relocate to a hotel.

Finally, at a second hearing three days later, Graves dismissed the complaint and permitted Ratte to move home.

Don Duquette, a U-M law professor who directs the university's Child Advocacy Law Clinic, represented Ratte and his wife. He notes sardonically that the most remarkable thing about the couple's case may be the relative speed with which they were reunited with Leo.

Duquette says the emergency removal powers of CPS, though "well-intentioned" are "out of control and partly responsible for the large numbers of kids in the foster care system," which is almost universally acknowledged to be badly overburdened.

Ratte and his wife have filed a formal complaint with the CPS ombudsman's office.

"I have apologized to Leo from the bottom of my heart for the silly mistake that got him into this mess," Ratte wrote in the complaint. "But I have also told him that what happened afterward was an even bigger error, and I would like to be able to say to him that institutions, like people, can learn from their mistakes."

Contact BRIAN DICKERSON at 248-351-3697 or bdickerson@freepress.com.

posted July 27, 2008 01:46 PM         

By Betty Freauf

April 30, 2008

NewsWithViews.com

When we first began to hear the phrase “In the Best Interest of the Child” we thought it was a noble concept that protected the vulnerable children by removing them from abusive or negligent parents; yet it also has led to levels of intervention unimaginable a few decades ago and suddenly many people were being accused of child abuse. Child Protective Services (CPS), because of something a child may have said to a teacher or written in an essay, which may even have been misconstrued, was kidnapping children at schools.

Because of draconian actions by the child protectors, many felt they were overstepping their boundaries, so the Oregon legislature passed legislation creating a Citizen Review Board, which was to become watchdogs over social workers who were determining who were unsuitable parents. I volunteered in the mid-1980s to become an unpaid member. A number of boards were set up in each county.

Our Constitution gave government no jurisdiction over family life and I felt constitutionally it was the county sheriff’s duty to investigate the crime of abuse because he was the “elected” official and the public could hold him responsible. I contacted our local sheriff and he was more than happy to take responsibility but this never happened. Instead, the social workers would contact the sheriff, or the local city police, and they would accompany the social workers to a home to supervise arrests of often times innocent people and take traumatized, screaming children to be “interrogated” and then to some “licensed” foster care home where it was not unusual for the child to be abused again. Bleeding-heart liberals who believed everything the media printed about this so-called epidemic felt the children would be safe in foster care because they were “licensed.”

“Licensing” by Big Brother, whether it is for day care, foster care, restaurants, entertainment centers, for any and all professionals, somehow gives the impression of safety and trust. Was the sheriff intimidated by the “experts” or did he not recognize his Constitutional authority even though he took an oath to defend it? His proper position should have been, “NOT IN MY COUNTY!!” Once again we saw the hand of the Communist infiltration in America. Goal #38 of the Communist Takeover of America is: Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies and treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand (or treat).

Across America, thousands of families have been ripped apart by child protection bureaucracies who terminate parents’ rights on a whim. Soviet Communist party educators in 1918 were instructed at a conference to take the children and nationalize them.

American children became nationalized on September 30, 1971 with the Comprehensive Child Development Programs, which I touched upon in June 2003 – one of the first articles I wrote for NewsWithViews. The legal training manual for the Department of Human Resources said social workers must be trained to accept “state values” regarding “our children.” Day care centers began to replace the parents, as “unemployed” mothers were encouraged to seek gainful employment outside the home. Our CPS operates under the Oregon’s Department of Human Resources that was created in 1973.

By a margin of three votes, the House of Representatives passed one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation ever to come before Congress at the behest of none other than another Republican president who stressed “family values.” Yes, none other than President Richard Nixon. Congressman John R. Rarick (D-LA) said Nixon addressed Congress in 1969 and recommended the government become involved in developing children during “the first five years of life. The anticipated age ranged was expected to be from infancy to kindergarten” and the Congressman asked, “What significant educational training can there be for babies in arms except to condition them to be away from their mothers and look to the State for security and guidance?” He also noted, “The child development programs are not to help working mothers but rather to establish federal custodial centers” and he said it was hypocrisy that “Repeated inferences (in the legislation) that parents don’t know how to control their children or lack the understanding and interest to discipline them” and then the Congressman supports what I more or less said in another of my articles: Congressman Rarick said “For years the progressive experimenters of the new educational system have encouraged smart-aleckness as free speech and dissent. Children have been taught their parents are old-fashioned and out of step with and ignorant of the needs of changing times.” And we can see the results today.

These child development programs, whose chief sponsor/proponent was John Brademas (D-IN), went so far as to include “home visits” for new parents (which Hillary Clinton supports). It was an amendment to the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) bill and passed by a vote of 186 to 183 in the House of Representatives. In Shirley Scheibla's book, Poverty is Where the Money Is, a hard-nosed analysis of the War on Poverty, she indicated OEO became the most confused, profligate and overpaid bureaucracy ever spawned by Congress, but it wasn’t the last. It was set up with the avowed aim of coordinating the War on Poverty and was waged by all the multifarious arms of the government. I touch upon this Commie boondoggle in my article Build the Trough and They Will Come: Agitation by federal anti-poverty workers caused anarchy and wide-scale riots exploded in cities throughout the country in July 1967, with accompanying death and destruction. OEO's director, Sargent Shriver, retreated to the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts.

According to Congressman John R. Rarick (D-LA), “The Brademas legislation laid the foundation for the federal government to replace the home and for bureaucratic ‘experts’ to replace the parents.” Without any statistics, logic or truth, this legislation also implied that millions of children had no parents and were from broken homes and in homes where they were mistreated or the parents were insensitive to the child’s demands and by the government stepping in would reduce crime and dissidence in society. Ya sure! How’s it been working?

When Big Brother wants something that would naturally be rebuffed by most informed Americans, they use scare tactics and get the media to sensationalize a few isolated cases. Congressman Rarick said this power grab over our youth was reminiscent of the Nazi Youth Movement; in fact, he says, it goes far beyond Hitler’s wildest dreams or the most outlandish of the Communist plans. Goal #40 of the Communist takeover of America: Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. Number 41: Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents. Please, read that again!

In trying to protect their children and provide the best opportunity to learn, many parents put their children in private Christian schools or home educated them. But as stated in Goal #41 above, the “experts” decided this seemingly well-meaning behavior is destructive to the psychological health of youngsters and now home educators are under attack.

Enter another “separated” group, the Eldorado, Texas, polygamists who were raided as a result of a call to the child abuse hot line. How did the supposedly isolated young caller know whom to call and where did she find a phone? Red flags! Radio celebrity and former leftist, Tami Bruce, announced the weekend of April 19th that police had found the person who made the call. I heard on the radio that she was from Colorado Springs, Colorado, is an El Paso Democrat, and a Barack Obama delegate.

DNA is being taken from the Texas children to prove parentage. In addition to government monitoring of private phone calls, data mining has become another bone of contention for those alarmed by Big Brother government. Many years ago, without parental permission, some fourth graders were included in a University of Vermont Smoking survey funded through a $1,000,000 research grant from the National Cancer Institute. Two strangers came into the room and the children were told to do as these people directed. Some questions were asked of the children and two women placed a piece of cotton on each child’s mouth. They were told this was strictly confidential and no one would ever know about the answers or anything else on the survey. The labels were supposedly coded differently and the answers that the children gave were stored with names different than the codes but weren’t told that a computer could match them.

The unsuspecting parents of one fourth grader eventually moved away and the children were home schooled beginning in 1987. In January 1992, the mother received a phone call from someone at the University of Minnesota asking for her daughter and stated the daughter had been part of a study done by the University of Vermont and that the University of Minnesota was doing a follow-up survey of the kids who had engaged in the experiment. So much for privacy! DNA is now being taken at an alarming rate from every source imaginable such as from newborn babies, from criminals when they are arrested, for people who go into surgery and every other possible source and all this information is put into a master database. Are the residents of the Texas compound another part of a social experiment of data mining?

A friend of mine, an Iowan at the time, told me that she was warned by her son's fourth grade classmate's mother to not allow her son to take an "outside, special" test in 1992. She asked the principal about it and he told her a random number of students had been chosen to take the test and assured her that her son could not be linked to the test in any way. She hadn't asked that question, so that put up a red flag. Her instincts told her to opt her son out of the testing and she was surprised at the principal's irritated reaction. At a later school board meeting, in front of many witnesses, he said that the test was numbered but it could not be linked to any of his students personally. A couple years later, my friend read the article, When Johnny Takes the Test and knew that her instincts had saved her son's information from being put into that database -- allegedly they were testing the community's belief system. The only reason that a community's belief system would need to be evaluated would be to be able to later come in and change the curriculum to suit the State's desires and goals!!

As a CRB member in the '80s, I would see the social workers recommend that fathers move out of the home and leave the children and the mothers. There were some women who refused to boot the husband out after a child accused him because they said he wasn’t guilty. Some kids tried to recant and said they made up the lie to get even with their fathers or stepfathers for some discipline, all to no avail. The children would end up in foster homes. Testimonies on the Internet indicate people in need of organ transplants are now adopting children for their “extra” organs. www.medicaladoptions.com/

Kids were never meant to be government-issues. They are gifts from God but when the Gestapo gets involved, everyone becomes a loser. There has been alienation of affection; children rebelled and many ran away. Many of them may be in gangs today because Big Brother makes a lousy mother! But wouldn’t keeping the mothers and the children at the Texas Yearning for Zion Ranch while keeping the men away be a better solution to this dilemma in Texas in “the best interests of the children?” But not if they want to test how much they can get by with as far as separations and testing! The men are accused of being the perpetrators and they are walking free. WHY doesn't that set up red flags for us? More than 400 children are suddenly available for DNA testing -- how convenient. Be prepared, your child may be next in line.

In 1990 I read where a CRB member had been reprimanded for critical remarks of Oregon’s child abuse industry that allow children to die and no one was ever held responsible. A Senator said the agency shouldn’t try to shut up its critics (CRB members) but by then, it was too late for me. I got “fired” from my (unpaid) volunteer position for the same reason. I complained to legislators but nothing got done. In April some Oregon parents were charged in a faith-healing death of their infant daughter.

Big Brother has the “experts” and “legal counsel” at its disposal to wear down the saints. The bureaucracy works in secrecy and behind confidentiality laws and they cover each other’s butts. And things haven’t changed. Using the Waco example and fearing trouble, the authorities again responded with armored tanks and police in this most recent Texas raid. At Waco, President Bill Clinton and his Attorney General, Janet Reno, illegally used the military on the Branch Davidians and in “the best interest of the children” incinerated them and others in a fire. The lone survivors went to prison.

This whole child abuse industry is a lucrative racket for judges, attorneys and social workers. Senator Walter Mondale fathered the multi-billion-child protection industry in America when he sponsored the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) in 1974 -- referred to in my July 26, 2007, article, Build the Trough and They Will Come.

Am I in favor of what has been alleged to have taken place at the Texas compound? No. However, we have thousands of minor girls pregnant that end up on Welfare just like what is being reported at their Compound and those girls are not part of any “fringe separatist” groups. When a minor girl goes for an abortion, Planned Parenthood protects the men who impregnate these girls by falsifying or not reporting their ages so they don’t have to report the perpetrator to the police as required by law. Physician, heal thyself!

Betty is a former Oregon Republican party activist having served as state party secretary, county chairman, 5th congressional vice chairman and then elected chairman, and a precinct worker for many years but Betty gave up on the two-party system in 2004 and joined the Constitutional Party.

Betty is a researcher specializing in education, a freelance journalist and a regular contributor to www.NewsWithViews.com

E-Mail: bettyboot@wvi.com

posted July 27, 2008 01:53 PM         

Parental Rights
Chapter Sixteen
When President Bill Clinton issued an executive order on April 21, 1997, instructing the directors of several federal agencies to give special attention to the health and safety needs of America’s children in the development of new policies and regulations, conservative and Christian organizations around the country immediately went on alert. The president’s order requires federal agencies to analyze and explain the effects of any new rules relating to children, explain how such changes will impact young people, and explain why such proposed actions are preferable to alternatives currently in practice.

The risk is not that the Clinton Administration isn’t concerned with child welfare, but that the White House has demonstrated from the beginning a very different view from most Americans of "the rights of the child." The president’s order, which establishes an inter-agency task force on children’s health and safety, is precisely the kind of bureaucratic and regulatory vehicle government liberals have used before to challenge parental rights and turn the government into a national nanny.

Over the past forty years we have witnessed the growth in this country of two overlapping trends in public policy regarding child welfare, both of them damaging to the traditional view of family autonomy and parental rights. In the first case, government has bypassed parents in order to impart its own judgments, views, and politically correct vision of truth. Often they have given bureaucrats rights of in loco parentis (to act in the place of parents) and assumed, even in such sensitive issues as access to birth control and abortion, authority that belongs to the family alone. The state wishes to give rights and freedoms to teenagers and teachers while withholding them from the lawful parents.

In the second case, which includes co-sponsorship of agreements such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, government has persistently tried to justify making intrusions into the family and interfering in basic parent-child relations by invoking other authority, such as the UN. At the same time, the state has attempted to lower the age of maturity in children, to recognize children as young as 15 as adults, thus taking away from mothers and fathers the God-given right to train, nurture, and discipline their offspring.

The Rights of Children
The government’s attempt to grant independence to children is simply one more expression of the liberal’s fixation on absolute "liberation" and the elimination of all forms of authority. Children might enjoy unlimited freedoms for a time; government might enjoy its ability to manipulate young minds; but such a move would undoubtedly place children at even greater risk and, at the same time, destroy the "innocence" of youth.

An example of the threat to parental rights can be seen in policies already being used by public libraries in many states. The American Library Association (ALA), one of the most liberal lobbying groups in the country, has announced that it is formally opposed to any restrictions on children’s rights to check out or use any material in the library, whatsoever, including pornographic books, films, and internet web sites, or other books and materials expressly for adults.

Under the guise of fighting "censorship," the ALA refuses to listen to parental objections. Parents may not even view the check-out records of their children; they may not request that certain materials be withheld from adolescents; and the organization’s official policies specifically deny parents control over the child’s "intellectual freedom."

Nowhere is the danger of such policies more clearly visible than in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, passed by the UN General Assembly in 1989. While American lawmakers have managed, so far, to fight off all attempts by the UN delegation and cultural liberals to force the United States to ratify this treaty, to date the U.N.’s campaign to win passage continues. According to the United Nation’s Children Fund (UNICEF) the U.S., Cook Islands, and Somalia are the only three nations yet to ratify the treaty.

UNICEF describes the convention as the "first legally binding international instrument to incorporate the full range of human rights —children’s civil and political rights as well as their economic, social and cultural rights." The convention, according to UNICEF, grants children "the right to freedom of expression . . . freedom of thought, conscience and religion," along with "the right to freedom of association."

The rights of parents are not so well spelled out in this document. For example, on "freedom of association," the treaty states that "No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of these rights other than those imposed in conformity with the law." It is not clear how well parental claims to authority would fare against their children’s competing claim to virtual autonomy under the terms of the treaty.

Pro-UN policymakers try to hold conservatives who fight against this dangerous convention up to public scorn and ridicule, resorting to name-calling and claiming our reluctance makes America look silly. But the dangers of the misguided principles and policies within the text of the convention simply cannot be overstated. And, according to the U.S. Constitution, once any treaty is agreed to by Congress, it is not merely a guide to behavior but the "supreme law of the land."

Genuine Risks
The attacks on parental rights are already mounting in this country. Consider the situation at East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania’s J. T. Lambert School. In 1996, 59 sixth-grade girls were paraded to the nurse’s office and forced to disrobe and undergo vaginal examinations. Most of the girls had never been exposed in this way and were traumatized and humiliated by the experience. When parents protested, the school at first denied they had conducted such an exam; but when the students made it clear the exams had occurred, the school officials reacted defiantly, saying that by the laws of Pennsylvania, they had the right to administer physical exams without parental consent. But never had the parents imagined that a routine physical would include a vaginal exam.

Seven of the families have filed suit against the school and the local school board, claiming invasion of privacy and personal injury. In one case, the family had previously provided a document for the school’s file indicating that a complete checkup had been performed by their family physician. When the 11-year-old girl was told to undress, she informed the nurse that her report was on file. The nurse claimed the report had been lost and insisted the child would have to submit to another exam. The girl persisted and asked the nurse to call her mother or family doctor, but to no avail. She came home from school in tears—hurt, humiliated, and feeling violated by an uncaring bureaucracy.

This is but one example of the state’s view of the rights of the child. There are many others. In Stephens County, Georgia, for example, a family found that their teenage daughters had been driven to a birth control clinic by their high school counselor. Not only were they given birth control pills and condoms, but they underwent an AIDS exam and Pap smear. In the controversy that followed, it was revealed that dozens of other girls had undergone the same treatment over many years.

In cities and towns all across America, teachers, counselors, and school administrators are violating the rights of parents and invading the privacy of children. In the case of Newkirk v. Lansing, a family sued the school district for administering psychotherapeutic counseling without consent and traumatizing their son. A family in Chelmsford, Massachusetts, sued the school district for forcing their child to attend a live seminar about "safe sex" by Suzi Landolph, of "Hot, Sexy and Safer Productions," against the child’s express desire not to attend. Even though the school had not followed its own "opt out" procedures in this case, the parents were rebuffed by the local courts, the court of appeals, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case.

These few cases are but the tip of an immense iceberg of dangerous social programming threatening the rights of citizens, parents, and their children all over America. The courts have almost always sided with the schools over the parents, with the clear intent of denying parental rights and supporting the rights of government and bureaucratic meddlers to control the thinking and behavior of the next generation.

Striking Back
There are currently a half dozen separate bills before Congress under consideration and in committee aimed at restoring parental authority and limiting government’s right to interfere in the upbringing of children. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Rep. Steve Largent (R-Okla.) are the prime sponsors in the Senate and House of the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act (PRRA), first introduced in 1995.

The bill, still in committee in mid-1997, affirms that the Supreme Court has regarded the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children as a "fundamental right" implied by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and as supported further by rulings of the court in Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters. With broad support of conservative pro-family groups and Christian ministries, the bills should help to provide a stronger legal foundation for America’s families, with the aim of preventing horror stories like those above from happening again.

But the greatest security for the family is to be prepared, to stay in God’s Word, and to be aware of what’s taking place in your home, local schools, the community, and in the nation, in general, regarding the sanctity and security of the home. Congress can pass legislation, but if we are not alert, a despotic government will find ways to impose its will, as they are doing now in the attempt to authorize a UN treaty that overrules U.S. constitutional law.

Alexis de Tocqueville, who came to this country in 1831, brilliantly described the strengths and weaknesses of the American democratic system and foresaw many of the problems that have been encountered in our own time. In a nation that has enjoyed the fruits of democracy, he warned that there is a tendency to become complacent and to allow government to grow out of its banks like a river in flood, until it swamps the nation with rules and regulations and a form of centralized authority that is no longer democracy, but despotism. He stated:

Despotism often presents itself as the repairer of all the ills suffered, the support of just rights, defender of the oppressed, and founder of order. Peoples are lulled to sleep by the temporary prosperity it engenders, and when they do wake up, they are wretched.
His image describes so faithfully what we are experiencing today, it’s hard to believe those words were written more than 160 years ago. If we expect to keep our rights and freedoms, we must be informed, alert, and challenge, by law and by reason, any institution that attempts to take away parental rights.

Scripture is clear on the rights and responsibilities of parents and children. The Fifth Commandment, "honor your father and mother," is God’s standard for domestic order. For that reason, those who seek to elevate the rights of children at the expense of parents are at war with God’s original design and, therefore, with God Himself. The apostle Paul clarified and affirmed the relationship of parents and children when he said:

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor your father and mother, which is the first commandment with promise: that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth. And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord
(Ephesians 6:1-4).

.

posted July 27, 2008 04:15 PM         

This first article and post by Nattie:
Not everyone's experience is the same http://yedies.blogspot.com/2008/01/standardized-testing-for-preschoolers.html

is the only article that mentions Head Start, and claims connection to the "No Child Left Behind" Act's Standard Testing. (Which I actually do not support (but because it puts too much pressure on teachers and causes the sub-standard or over-worked ones to just focus on testing material instead of actual education and teaching, not because of some grand "Big Brother", though I have no doubts that's where we are headed in this world without enlightenment, and give my support to people who are actually unearthing true crimes of the government, rather than sensationalist journalism that stretches and molds the truth to their purposes and political agendas.)
Anyway, the article mentions what appears to be one of the many Developmental Screening Systems used, which is not a standard test, which is why there is no "right" answer (as the article goes on to reveal the horror that children would ask if they got the answer right and no one would tell them, ohh the psychological pressure) and since I have filled these screenings out myself for my own daughter I can tell you that if you spend ANY time with your child AT ALL just teaching them about life and explaining events that happen (like a bird in a nest or why a work man is working in a certain area, just basic stuff) and allow your child to play outside or a park to jump and run (as opposed to threatening their life if they move from the floor in front of the television or from their prison room while you ignore and neglect them and treat them as if they are lower class people that don't even exist or think), barring any actual disability which is what the test is actually screening for... your child's brain and body will be formed enough to be WAY above any of the low ranges of the screening. And this screening asks the child to "stand on one leg" or "draw a straight line". Stuff like that. And they give the parents the papers so the kids DON'T have to do the whole thing at once, so again, if one crazy lady is trying to do things wrong (as the article mentioned someone appointed by the current administration of the time and current party of the time who the woman was tied to that the article writer is against blah de blah blah agenda and not truth) that doesn't mean an entire organization that some of the most loving and heroic college students become a part of should be discussed by some cheap journalists as some sort of Big Brother conspiracy against our children just so they have something to write about. Journalists like that, planting these seeds of fear, are making it impossible to find the actual truth for most people. I have zero respect for them and nothing but contempt.

The next articles are all about Child Protective Services, which I am not debating because I do not feel I have enough first party information to hold a position on either way, but if I did debate it, knowing what I know about people I have met in my life who had child protective services called on them and who called child protective services on others, you have to have no food in your house and no clean clothes for your child for them to even consider something is wrong. In other words, you have to be an extreme **** up. So many children live in houses with animal feces on the carpet and random others crashed on the couch, breathing cigarette smoke and eating chips and drinking Pepsi to obesity and CPS doesn't step in. Child abuse itself is a foggy area and subjective even where it should not be. Anyone reading this who can think about and solve that problem without ever stepping on any parental toes of good parents on accident should share their plan with the world. Like the article where the man said he wanted a lemonade and was handed a Mike's alcoholic lemonade in a bottle and just handed it over to his kid and then explained later that he did not watch tv and did not know what it was... yes, that could happen, but it is very unlikely which is why he had to crawl through some red tape to make sure things were ok. If they would let that guy go with no investigation, every loser in the world would be buying his kids Mike's Hard Lemonade and then throwing up his hands and saying, "Ohh, I didn't KNOW..." People who are sheltered from the underworld haven't got a clue what these workers are dealing with on a daily basis. They are trying to HELP people. The people who are wronged are FEW AND FAR BETWEEN and because these people make such a huge stink and others spend more time witch hunting than actually helping fix what's wrong and getting involved, so many children ARE NOT HELPED. And there might be some who don't care about these kids or the creepy adults they become, but I suppose you'll care when the crime hits you or your family, and then you'll be the same one's making a stink that the government doesn't do enough to stop these "criminals"!

I am guessing that Nattie's position is not against these particular good programs I am defending, that her original two articles slandered, but is against further government involvement in private citizen affairs, which is a whole other debate that I won't take part in because it is way too complicated an issue for people who have not spent years researching the subject to debate in any sort of fruitful way. I also do not like trusting government with more control, and yet also see the "necessary evils" of living with so many others in the nation and world. That show, Kid Nation where they gave the kids a town to run and sooner or later there were those not doing their share and living off others and some getting angry about that and telling them so and then those getting angrier and starting to kick things around etc etc until the innocent children made the choice to have "law" that everyone was to follow and consequences for those who did not follow them. As a society, we did the same. This then brings in the areas of gray where it is against the law to give your kids alcohol, but in the case of someone who is a ball park where people are served Hard Lemonade more often then child lemonade and where there are still a few people left in the world who are not constantly exposed to television and advertising, there is a chance that an instance would fall through the cracks of the "law".
**** happens. Atrocities happen. We have to work to heal them and prevent them, not destroy good organizations that are trying to help.

And the last article, which is not about the programs I am defending or about Child Protective Services, mentions libraries refusing to become involved in taking over the parental responsibilities, refuses to decide which books are ok for children to take out and which are not, and the parents seem to be very upset about this too. Now they WANT the government to decide for them and take over their responsibility. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. People will say, well, it is common sense that kids should not be able to take out "pornographic" materials! But that is what is called a "slippery slope" my friends. One person's idea of "pornography" is another person's "Judy Blume, beloved childhood author" and one person's "inappropriate for children" is another person's "educational classic, Catcher in the Rye". In this situation due to so many political agendas against "censorship" the libraries have chosen to step out of the war entirely and just leave it up to parents to supervise their children and now the parents are outraged about that too.

And I can agree to... "just because some people don't bother to supervise or parent their children at all, why should decent parents have to work extra hard or put up with extra b.s.!?" I can sympathize, but it is just the state of the world, OUR world, and if we ignore the rotting cancer on our toe, it will only continue to spread and destroy/consume the entire organism. We've got work to do and I am glad there are those who pay attention to what the government is doing. I honor and respect them as valuable, and even as heroes. I don't have respect for spastic ignorant sensationalists who destroy innocents while screeching and tossing about hand grenades instead of taking the time, effort, and energy to fully investigate what they are talking about.

That's all I have to say about THAT.

posted July 27, 2008 10:06 PM         

That said, I think a lot of these programs are ... well intentioned. Good intentions aren't enough, imo, when dealing with children. I do recognize that there are many children living in horrid situations and that there are also many people who want to help. I do not think that expanding the fed's powers into our homes (ala CPS) is ever going to be the best possible solution. Non-profit, volunteer based, community based solutions I think have a better chance of actually helping families cope and heal than do red taped government employees who have been proven, in the past, to do more harm than good. And somehow, from my experiences with CPS and other such cases, the really neglected and abused children still fall through the cracks while other children's parents are aggressively pursued as criminals over less serious (often mistaken or overblown) actions.

No, I don't have all the answers. But neither do I think the government has all the answers and they are certainly not (or should never be) the only authority over our children. And, for myself, I would love to see someone privately investigate all the folks who contribute and/or participate in these programs (from the folks who create and pass the legislation down to the guy who volunteers an hour on the weekends) and see what their homes look like and how their children are treated or how many accidents they've had or how they dress or what they eat [or if they even have children to begin with] etc. and then compare that to past cases of "abuse" or "possible abuse" that have been reported.

Because of the nature of these discussions ... just want to clarify that in no way are my views at all supporting of child abuse or of families being neglected. Kudos to anyone who actually helps a child in need and I hope there's a day when these kinds of discussions aren't even needed.