Parents
Should be Outraged
If
you are concerned about the moral decline of our world,
join Family Leader Network. Come to www.familyleader.net and
learn about the organization that educates and energizes
people around the issues that matter. Subscribe to the
weekly email and take action alerts so you can know when
and how you can take your stand.
If
this ruling outrages you, let your voice be heard. You
can write your local media by clicking
here. You can use some of the talking points in the article
below.
What if, by law, you couldn’t protect your child from
something you felt would hurt him or her? What if the
state said you had no right to control what enters your
child’s life?
This
sounds like the worst kind of nightmare for parents who
love their children and are concerned about the erosion
of the moral environment.
According
to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court, the nightmare
has arrived.
On Wednesday November
2, 2005, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit by parents outraged that
the Palmdale School District in California surveyed their elementary
school children about sex.
The
Survey
The
survey was given to children in the first, third
and fifth grades as part of a program to supposedly
“gauge early trauma and help youngsters overcome barriers
to learning.”
The
survey included 79 questions administered to first, third
and fifth graders, many who could not read. This included
sexually explicit questions including:
8. Touching my private parts too much
17. Thinking about having sex
22. Thinking about touching other people’s private parts
23. Thinking about sex when I don’t want to
26. Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside
34. Not trusting people because they might want sex
40. Getting scared or upset when I think about sex
44. Having sex feelings in my body
47. Can’t stop thinking about sex
54. Getting upset when people talk about sex
Kristi Seymour, a research assistant to Director of Psychology
Michael Geisser and a professor from California School
of Professional Psychology, volunteered as a “mental health
counselor” at Mesquite Elementary School while she was
enrolled in a master’s degree program at the California
School of Professional Psychology.
The Palmdale School District, of
which Mesquite was a part, collaborated with the School
of Professional Psychology, the Children’s Bureau of Southern
California, and Seymour to develop and administer a psychological
assessment questionnaire for first, third, and fifth grade
students with the announced goal of “establish[ing] a
community baseline measure of children’s exposure to early
trauma (for example, violence).”
Prior to administering the survey, the school mailed a
letter to the parents of the children to be surveyed informing
them of the questionnaire’s nature and purpose, and requesting
their consent to its administration.
The
parental consent letter was enclosed in a School District
envelope and was mailed using School District postage.
The letter did not explicitly state that some questions
involved sexual topics, although it did specify that the
survey questions were about “early trauma (for example,
violence)” and there was a warning that “answering questions
may make [the] child feel uncomfortable.”
After the School District approved the survey, Seymour administered it during school hours at Mesquite Elementary School. She sat with the students, aged seven to ten, while
they completed the survey and ensured that they read and
responded to each question.
What
the Court Said
Outraged
parents sued the Palmdale School District and last week the infamous 9th Circuit,
who also ruled against “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance
dismissed the case.
As
shocking as the survey is the court’s response:
"...parents
have no due process or privacy right to override the
determinations of public schools as to the information
to which their children will be exposed while enrolled
as students."
"there
is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive
provider of information regarding sexual matters to their
children..."
"no such specific right can be found in the deep roots
of the nation's history and tradition or implied in the
concept of ordered liberty."
This
means that the court ruled that the state can step between
a parent and child, dictating what that child will be
exposed to — and the parent has no right to stop that.
Not
only does this severely undermine a parent’s right to
protect and guide their children, but it is based on the
flimsiest of reasons. They claim that the school has a
legitimate state interest to assault little children in
this way.
The court found “it is reasonable for the School District
to believe that the students’ answers to questions posed
by its employee, who was trained in evaluating mental
health, would aid the establishment of a district-wide
intervention program to identify and treat barriers to
learning caused by exposure to childhood trauma.” Accordingly,
the School District’s administration of the survey was
rationally related to its legitimate state interest in
effective education and the mental welfare of its students.”
What’s
more, the judges found it easy to make this decision —
meaning that they already embrace a philosophy that undermines
parents and family.
The court states, “Although we reach our conclusions with
little difficulty and firmly endorse the School District’s
authority to conduct a survey for the purposes involved
here, we reiterate that we express no view on the wisdom
of posing some of the particular questions asked or of
conducting an inquiry into some of the particular areas
surveyed by the School District. That determination is
properly left to the school authorities.”
The court states that, “We note at the outset that it
is not our role to rule on the wisdom of the School District’s actions. That is a matter that must be decided in
other fora. The question before us is simply whether the
parents have a constitutional right to exclusive control
over the introduction and flow of sexual information to
their children.”
The court also found that “as with all constitutional
rights, the right of parents to make decisions concerning
the care, custody, and control of their children is not
without limitations …Parents have a right to inform
their children when and as they wish on the subject of
sex; they have no constitutional right, however, to prevent
a public school from providing its students with whatever
information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise,
when and as the school determines that it is appropriate
to do so.”
The parent-plaintiffs learned of the sexual nature of
some of the questions on the survey when their children
informed them of the questions after they had completed
the questionnaires.
Responses
Carrie Gordon Earll, Director with Focus on the Family,
states, “What the court did here is declare parenthood
unconstitutional. It's long been the liberal view that
it takes a village to raise a child — but never before
have the 'villagers' been elevated, as a matter of law,
above mothers and fathers."
From the Family Research Council: “It is hard to imagine
that any of those sitting judges who issued this infamous
ruling ever had a seven-year-old child. This outrageous
and offensive result must be overturned. It is one more
horrible example of what happens to parents' rights when
liberal judicial activists are unchecked. Whatever happened
to the child's right to be a child? Long ago, the U.S.
Supreme Court recognized parents' rights in the landmark
case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925). There, the
high court said: The child is not the mere creature of
the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny
have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize
and prepare him for additional obligations. Those who
"nurture" the child and "direct his destiny"
are commonly called parents. Eighty years ago, the Supreme
Court showed great respect for parents' rights.”
Judicial
Precedents for Parents’ Rights
The
9th circuits own decision states “The Supreme Court has
held that the right of parents to make decisions concerning
the care, custody, and control of their children is a
fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process
Clause. See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 (2000)
(plurality opinion) (“[I]t cannot now be doubted that
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects
the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning
the care, custody, and control of their children”).
This
right is commonly referred to as the Meyer-Pierce right
because it finds its origin in two Supreme Court cases,
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Pierce v.
Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).”
In the 1920’s, the Supreme Court asserted that the right
of parents to raise and educate their children was a “fundamental”
type of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause.
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925).
Over
the years, the courts have often asserted that parental
rights are constitutionally protected such as a parent's
“right to the care, custody, management and companionship
of [his or her] minor children” which is an interest "far
more precious than… property rights” (where a mother had
her rights to custody jeopardized by a competing custody
decree improperly obtained in another state). May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533 (1952).
In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 502 (1965),
Justice White in his concurring opinion offered “this
Court has had occasion to articulate that the liberty
entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment
includes the right "to marry, establish a home and
bring up children," and "the liberty ... to
direct the upbringing and education of children,"
and that these are among "the basic civil rights
of man.”
The RIGHT of parenting existed before governments of men,
and existed at the first human, or preter-human birth,
LONG BEFORE the zenith of the law’s existence. This
“RIGHT” of parents existed before the edicts of tyrants,
before the sovereign decrees of kings, before the 10 commandments,
before Hammurabi’s code, before the Magna Carta, and even
before the great Constitution of the United States.
In Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651 (1972), the court indicated that the State
must demonstrate a “powerful countervailing interest”
stressing that; "the parent-child relationship is
an important interest that undeniably warrants deference
and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection."
A parent's interest in the companionship, care, custody
and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally
secured right, given the centrality of family life as
the focus for personal meaning and responsibility.”
In Prince v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court admitted the high responsibility
and right of parents to control the upbringing of their
children against that of the State. “It is cardinal with
us that the custody, care, and nurture of the child reside
first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom
include preparation for obligations the State can neither
supply nor hinder.”
In Wisconsin v. Yoder in 1972, Chief Justice Burger stated,
“This case involves the fundamental interest of parents,
as contrasted with that of the state, to guide the religious
future and education of their children. The history and
culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition
of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of
their children. This primary role of the parents in the
upbringing of their children is now established beyond
debate as an enduring tradition.”
The 9th Circuit Court has just flown in the
face of a long-established precedent.
