Generation Cedar

Many of you may be familiar with, but if you’re not, you need to make yourself a close acquaintance of their mission.

In a very small nutshell, the United States is considering ratifying the Convention on the Rights of a Child, in affiliation with UNICEF, a “global movement for children and children’s rights”.

Typical of a “global agenda” is carefully disguised verbiage and a carefully embedded message that “we’re all in it for the children”.  Because, after all, we are.  But realistically, if the treaty is passed, it means the government will have veto power over the parents regarding any matter it sees fit.

So while on the surface the treaty’s agenda seems to be merely to “protect children from abuse” and to “ensure the rights of children” , you may want to know what some judges, already here in the US, consider abuse or an infringement of rights.

A 13-year-old Washington state boy complained to the school counselor that his parents took him to church too often (Sunday morning and night and Wednesday nights).  She told him to call CPS.  CPS removed him from his home and placed him with foster parents.  He was allowed to return home after a judge ruled that his parents must reduce the frequency of his church attendance to only once a week.

Under the UN CRC, and within the hidden rhetoric, the government will have the power to enforce the education it deems suitable for every child.  If a parent wishes, for example, to teach a particular religion as “the right religion”, that would violate the Tolerance Act and a child would likely face mandatory placement in public school.  In fact, following precedent in other countries, the treaty would likely allow for either the banning of all private educational establishments or strict compliance with a state-mandated curriculum.

Sound far-fetched?  There are actions already stripping parents of their fundamental rights in the educational system:

A Massachusetts father was arrested during a parent/teacher meeting scheduled to request that his 6-year-old son be able to opt out of the sex education class where homosexuality was being discussed.  The school board ruled that once the parents dropped their children off at school they “gave up certain responsibilities” and the father was not permitted to have his son opt out of the class.

Again, it fell under the “tolerance agenda” being aggressively enforced across our nation.  But the issue isn’t about tolerance; if I, as a parent, want my child to opt-out of a bread-making class, that is my inherent right.

Parents here in the US are facing charges if they deny certain medical care for their children (and here we aren’t talking about life-saving procedures; we’re talking about doctors ordering unnecessary tests and procedures where parents aren’t given the option to decline.)

Furthermore, many doctors now, under the “rights of a child’s privacy” will not allow parents to accompany their under-aged children for an exam, nor will they disclose diagnoses or treatment. (I have friends who have experienced this.  But don’t worry, be sure you still get to pay the bill.)

In the news last week, a 6-year-old boy was hauled off from school, in an ambulance, to a psychiatric ward and placed in a 72-hour hold against his mother’s wishes. (His father was deployed, he drew a disturbing picture and wrote that he wanted to die.)  The mother told the school she would take her son immediately to their own therapist but the school told her “it was out of her hands” and he was carried away.  The mother was concerned that the ordeal was more traumatizing than the “separation anxiety” he was already dealing with.

And that’s the bottom line facing us in this fight.  It’s not a “conservative vs. liberal” fight either.  It’s a basic infringement on parental and family rights that stands to threaten any and every parent on the planet.

It’s an agenda backed by people who truly believe the world would be a better place if they get to decide what is best for children in every area of life.

I would encourage you all to visit and sign their petition. We ordered a copy of the documentary “The Child” which does an excellent job of explaining this treaty and its enormous threats to the freedom of our country.  We plan to show it in a public forum and inform as many as we can.  I urge you to do the same.

As many of the speakers stated, it’s a difficult fight, but not one that is impossible.  The way we lose is to do nothing.  But I don’t want my children to grow up and have to raise their families as slaves to the state, which is exactly what will happen if this treaty gets ratified.

Now is the time to stop it.

Spread the love

68 Responses

  1. I’ve heard of this from friends, and you can also read about it at Home School Legal Defense Association. This is an awful treaty disguised to be something good. All other countries except for the USA and one other have already ratified it. Thank you for bringing it to others attention. I posted this article to my facebook to get the word out also. Thank you.

  2. A few weeks ago I had to take my 15 daughter to the ER because she was having severe abdominal pain. The MD taking her history had me step out of the room so he could ask her about her sexual history. She was mortified. All said and done, she has a cyst on her kidney.

    1. The doctor didn’t even ask your daughter if she minded having you with her during the exam? If she has the “right” to have a private exam, she should also have the right to have you there if that’s her choice, IMHO.

  3. This is nothing new, unfortunately, it just keeps getting repackaged and reintroduced. It is a sad irony that UNICEF is one of the driving forces behind this “protection” for children is the very same group that promotes broad spectrum (and I use that term intentionally, as their own detailed mission outlines it as such) abortifacient birth control in the developing world.

    One thing about Dr’s and exams – you are NOT required to step out or leave your child with a Dr. simply because they request it. I would strongly advise asking as you’re making the appointment what that practice’s policy is, and if they are not family appropriate, don’t go there. Proper supervision of your minor child is not an item for a strangers consideration. This insisting the parents step out is not only unprofessional, requiring it is marginally legal, and more than a little creepy.

    1. That is good advice about not leaving the room during a doctor’s visit. I didn’t know that, but it makes sense. If a doctor really wanted to question my adolescent daughter in private, I’d insist on a female nurse or doctor being left alone with her.

  4. Absolute insanity. I was talking to an Aussie lady about going too far with liberalism as well as conservatism. She said, “How can you go too far with equality and tolerance?” My answer had to do with losing discernment and discretion. People with ultra-liberal views really are NOT interested in tolerance at all.

  5. Not sure if the above examples are real events but thats what the second amend. Is for, let a doctor or a teacher try to take my child some where without my permission… you have the right to violently defend your family… stand up and do it!

    1. Yes they’re real events and you can read a news story on any of them if you Google it. I agree with you, but the problem is that you can only “violently defend” so much in handcuffs :-/

      The major problem, and the reason Parental Rights is working so hard, is that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly make provisions for parental rights (our forefathers no doubt knew it was so inherent that it didn’t need to be stated). So, if there is a written document outlining children’s rights (CRC that is up for ratification) but no written document defending parental rights, a judge has little to stand on.

      Parental is working to have an amendment added for this protection.

      We can’t fathom having these basic freedoms taken away in America so it’s hard for us to imagine it, but tyranny is not impossible–just look around at some other countries.

      1. Really? Because I have googled these and cannot find any references at all. Anyone who quotes articles like this and does not include the sources is, at best, irresponsible and at worst, inciting needless rage.

        Also, please keep in mind that foreign law, even ratified charters of the UN, DO NOT EVER trump our U.S. laws. Never.

        1. There’s no point in reacting. I Googled these stories (only after I had already seen the cases on the documentary) and found them just fine. Often people like to find their own sources because they think mine might come from a biased source. I don’t think citing REAL cases without a link is reckless at all with the ease of technology right at your fingertips. I wouldn’t cite random cases without verifying it through a valid source.

        2. Mark – “I have googled these and cannot find any references at all.” the Mass sex ed case:

          That took me about 45 seconds to find.

          Re: “the government will have veto power over the parents regarding any matter it sees fit.”

          Here’s a story where all the children are removed from the parents because they didn’t want to start the one ill child on chemo on the MDs schedule:

          6-year old boy removed to psychiatric care:

          That took me about a minute and a half to fine. She’s irresponsible? You’re lazy. Go troll somewhere else.

        3. “Also, please keep in mind that foreign law, even ratified charters of the UN, DO NOT EVER trump our U.S. laws. Never.”

          If you read through my comments, I mention that the problem is there is no specifically written law that protects parents rights. So yes, something written and ratified would trump an “implied” or “inherent” right we presume to have.

          Read a little bit first and then discuss.

  6. I have heard about this, and it is just scary. Thanks for informing so many. I wasn’t aware there was a petition, but am going there now. Thank you!!!! 🙂

  7. Thank you for giving us this information. Down right frightening. The government shouldn’t have the control over raising your child. The government screws up everything it touches.

  8. I think you misstate the case in Denver. The child needed chemo and the parents didn’t understand that. It wasn’t a quesiton of the MD’s timetable, as you state (“You can’t do it Saturday? OK, she’s not having chemo!”)

    Once they understood that her cancer had returned, they were going to permit the chemo. But the court should certainly intervene when a parent is denying a child life-saving medicine (Hodgkins is highly treatable with chemo).

    The parents backpedaled and said they refused b/c the doctor didn’t answer their questions. What? Make another appointment, get a second opinion or research the lab results yourself. Don’t just refuse treatment. Sounds like they were acting in a highly questionable way, at risk to their daughter’s life. “Thou shalt not murder” refers to parents, too.

    1. And thus you step onto the slippery slope that the Parental Rights org. is trying to fight.

      First, the article doesn’t give nearly enough detail to assert that the parents are “committing murder” by refusing treatment. I would be willing to state emphatically that they, above anyone else, want their child to live and thrive.

      Perhaps they had done research to reveal how damaging chemo can be and how effective other treatments like nutritional therapy can be. Perhaps they had read the hundreds/thousands of cases of people who had remained deathly sick and died after chemo contrasted with the thousands of those who had experienced a full and healthy recovery with nutritional therapy.

      Just because chemo is a doctor’s default treatment doesn’t make it the only one. Parents are not embecile’s but this refusal to allow a parent’s decision in such matters assumes they are.

      Refusing treatment could be the very best thing for her…no one knows. There is no abuse in this case; only parents desperately searching for the best thing for their daughter.

      Once a precedant is set and the legal system allows “experts” to trump parents wishes where no abuse is found, it is a dangerous, slippery slope.

  9. The therapy that the parents wanted to use was high-dose vitamin C therapy, which has been proven in double-blind studies to be completely ineffective.

    Because the parents denied treatment for so long, this child is now dying of an illness that would have been completely treatable.

    1. J/anine – All patients should have the right to refuse conventional medicine in favor of “alternative” medicine. What you suggest is tantamount to saying that all women should be forced to sign up for c-sections and only be allowed to have vaginal, strapped-to-the-table-fetal-moniter free births IF the OB feels that in that particular mother’s case, a c-section might be a bad idea, in her case. (This is not a far-fetched suggestion by any means, and is in fact the direction our country’s taken already).

      “Alternative” medicine should not be only legally available to those who have exhausted all allopathic/conventional options. In fact, that is often how new viable treatments are discovered. Did Katie’s parents behave as I would have under the same circumstantes? No, probably not, but we are supposed to be living in a free country where people are allowed to make their own choices (and those of the children in their care). It’s incredibly arrogant of you to suggest that you know how to treat their child better than they, w/ the benefit of years worth of hindsight. It’s also unamerican. And unbiblical (not that you care about that). We are not wards of the state to obey them and the “professionals” until all “their” options are exhausted.

      1. This is true: but ONLY for adults. Adults may choose whatever medical interventions they wish or they can choose not to be treated — that is an absolute right. Children do not have the same absolute right, because they cannot legally consent. Parents have a lot of freedom to choose among various therapies, but they can’t reject medical treatment for their children suffering from life-threatening diseases.

        1. Sorry, but I need more than your say-so to believe you. A parent should need more than your say-so to lose his/her childre. By the way, please note that not just the ill girl was taken from her parents, but all the children.

          It is because of thoughtless do-gooder people like you that causes midwife-assisted homebirth to be illegal in several states still, including mine. It is because of thoughtless do-gooder people like you that a judge granted a hospital legal rights to this woman’s unborn child when she refused a mandatory c-section:

          1. I agree that the judge was wrong in that case, but (according to that article) that happened ONE TIME. It’s not an agenda. It’s one wrong judge.

            There are many cases, on the other hand, in which hospitals had to allow women to attempt vaginal birth even in emergency situations that required C-sections, and their fetuses died. That’s the law when you’re dealing with unborn children, and even though those are tragic outcomes, those hospitals did the right thing (legally).

          2. On a slightly irrelevant note, does anyone see the absurdity of the c-section case–government claims “forced rights” to an unborn child in order to “protect” it, but if she doesn’t want it, the government will pay to have it killed????

          3. The irony of “choice” vs. choice is not lost on me – nor the fact that “b” refers to the unborn baby as a fetus – dehumanizing it, using the language of “pro-choice.” I wonder which it is – is it a baby w/ rights or not? Does the mother have rights over her body or not? Yes – if she wants to kill “it,” but no if she wants a vaginal delivery of her 10 lb baby, perhaps in her own home, with a midwife and not an ob.

  10. We live in Washington state and recently experienced a horrifying and intrusive investigation by the state social services. Before I experienced the kind of mocking, threatening, and underhanded tactics of social workers I would never had really believed that an ordinary family who are good parents and known and loved in the community could be threatened in this way.

    Yes, the state does and will illegally take children from homes and schools without a warrant. Family court does not function as civil courts do. They are not required to read us our rights. They make horrifying mistakes and the judges sign off on it. Follow the money trail. Our states bill the federal government for every Child Protective Services call so the more the better. The state also earns money for each child taken into care. The state is not interested in long term permanent homes for children because that would mean a loss of revenue.

    Do your research. Don’t be naive. We have the HSLDA number taped on our window sill right by the front door. We also have a obtained a private attorney. But we also keep in mind that attorneys can only try to defend us…often, it is too late if we have been falsely accused and our children taken away.

    I tell you, our eyes have been opened. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has not yet been ratified but the state and it’s workers have acted and continue to act as though most parents are criminals and that the state knows best.

    1. WOW. Thanks for sharing that. I wish more people could understand this *not-so-subtle* force against parents and realize the potential it has on ours and the next generations.

  11. Using your theory, I could treat a child with cancer by strapping an onion to his head (an alternative method I have read about).

    I could treat a chld with a broken leg by given him garlic.

    I could treat a child bleeding to death with high-doses of vitamin C.

    There’s nothing American or biblical about letting a child die.

  12. Just wanted to add that after our aforementioned horrible experience with social services we did join as well as the Heritage Defense Association ( They are Christian attorneys who defend homeschooling families in cases such the ones mentioned.

    During our ordeal it was such a wonderful thing to call HSLDA and Heritage Defense and talk to men who know the way the government works and had good information and help for us. We were not members at the time(we had let our HSLDA membership lapse) but were happy to join and will continue to budget the money to help other families as well. HSLDA is very very quick to respond when we need them. I love those men. Michael Farris helped start Bless the man.

    Go to the Heritage Defense website and they document a number of the cases as well as a recent one where an Army Major and his wife in NJ just had their five children taken away for being “too religious”.

    One of the attorneys for this organization became an attorney after he and his wife counseled and ministered to people for many years who had been hounded by the state and he realized that there was a need for upright attorneys.

    If you are ever questioned by a social worker never, never, never say anything without a witness and a tape recorder. They will twist your words. They will lie! We experienced this with trusted Christian social workers who lied through their teeth. Yes, there are “honest” social workers out there but the system is dishonest and your words could get twisted by somebody else. Document and record everything.

    Jill Farris

  13. This is indeed disturbing. Thank you for reminding us of the constant attacks against conservative Christian families and the intrusions of our socialist government.

  14. To say that the Massachussetts father was arrested “during a parent/teacher meeting scheduled to request that his 6-year-old son be able to opt out of the sex education class where homosexuality was being discussed” is extremely misleading. He was arrested for refusing to leave school property hours after the meeting was over because his demands were not being met. His arrest had nothing to do with a homosexual agenda or parental rights, and to report it as such is disingenuous.

    1. I reported it just as the news report *I* read reported it. But you make the case yourself…”his demands were not being met”. He was not allowed the parental rights of choosing to have his son opt out of the class. Why would he leave the premise? It WAS all about his hands being tied and a school’s authority trumping his.

      1. 1. Maybe you should check stories out before you perpetuate them, especially if they’re reported without references.

        2. Why should he leave the premises? Perhaps because it’s 6PM and the school personnel have the right to go home? Whether or not his demands were reasonable, they were not going to be met that day and he needed to leave. When he refused, what were the school personnel supposed to do? Agree with him just so that they could go home, even though they felt they could not reasonably accomodate his demands?

        1. I “checked” the story and reported it as it read:

          “On April 27, a Lexington, MA, parent, David Parker, was arrested by the Lexington police and charged with “trespassing” at his son’s elementary school during a scheduled meeting with the principal and the town’s Director of Education over his objections to homosexual curriculum materials. Parker had asked for notification and possible opt-out for his son for homosexual curriculum or ad-hoc discussions by adults in his son’s kindergarten class. After several months of communication, he was repeatedly told that his requests are “not possible.” He finally said he would not leave the meeting until this was resolved.”

          There is hardly a news story that doesn’t have some variation in details among reports. What time he was arrested is irrelevant to me, because his arrest wasn’t even the main issue. I’m not a journalist, I’m a mom. Write the website that reported the story with news clips and fuss at them.

          The crux of the story is still the same, so getting bent out of shape about irrelevant details is frivolous. Father was denied rights to remove his son from a class–that’s the problem here, and the one you too should be concerned about.

          1. 1. The meeting was scheduled for 3-4PM. I hardly think it was expected to last until 6PM. He was essentially holding the school personnel hostage by refusing to leave.

            2. As you reported it, the arrest WAS the main issue. You reported (by repeating the story) that he was arrested for attending the meeting and asking for his son to be opted out. This was a lie. He was arrested for refusing to leave school premises well after the meeting should have ended.

            3. I read about this HERE, which is why I’m “fussing” HERE. Perhaps you should fuss THERE, since that’s where you read it. Please do. Then maybe they’ll fuss where they originally read it, too.

            4. And for the record, the principal had already assured the parents (prior to the meeting) that homosexuality is never discussed as a part of the curriculum in kindergarten. This apparently was not good enough for them. It’s not clear what they wanted their son “opted out” from, since it wasn’t a part of the curriculum anyway. The principal had made it clear that there was no way she could control what came up casually, “as we do have children in our school who have parents who are same sex partners. These issues may come up in talk on the playground, during show and tell, when a student shares a picture about what the family did over the weekend, or when their parents come in to the classroom to volunteer or for a party.”

          2. Thank you Barb. I’m thankful you have the time to cross-check all the articles which I don’t. I quoted in my last comment straight from the report. You are refusing to see the point of my reference to the article. I mentioned the incidents, AS REPORTED, as briefly as possible to demonstrate that parents are already losing their rights to have their children opt out of a public school class. It doesn’t even matter what they were teaching, as I said in the post. When I was in school if my father wanted me to come home for a reason, he was able to check me out. Not so anymore.

            If the report I took the info. from was inaccurate, and the mistake was enough that it changed the whole point of the post, I would find another report and correct it. I don’t appreciate being told that I “lied” when I didn’t change the information from the report I read, but have provided a verbatim quote.

            If you would like to discuss the REAL issue–parental rights being violated–and there are many more stories than these, I’d be happy to let you do that. Otherwise, find another more productive argument please.

          3. You didn’t lie. You simply didn’t check your source before perpetuating the story. Your source (or your source’s source) lied.

            What’s sad is that others have read the same story here and perpetuated it farther. This is how lies are spread. This is how Christians lose credibility.

      2. I agree with Kelley. The time the father was arrested is irrelevant.
        In Texas we are facing quite a bit of new legislation regarding education && parental rights. PARENTS should decide when && where children go to school. PARENTS should have ultimate veto power on everything the child does or learns. PARENTS should have authority to decide t their own discretion if a child should attend class or not for whatever reason.

        The father was not given a choice for his child to not learn about sexuality at school.
        That *is* the point.

        Further more: Kelly “lying” && the school personnel being “held hostage” are, at best, both extreme exaggerations && misleading.

        1. Have you read the articles? The father was demanding that EVERY TIME homosexuality was discussed, even if it wasn’t planned, he wanted his son removed from the situation. If a child with two moms wanted to talk about her weekend, his child should be removed. Can you imagine how disruptive this would be?

          Then imagine that another parent was a vegan and wanted her child removed every time meat was mentioned. And another parent was against Canadians and wanted her child removed every time Canada was mentioned. And another parent was against …

          The father had ALREADY been told that his child could be opted out of sex education, which wasn’t going to happen until 5th grade. It was his further demands that could not be reasonably met, and he was refusing to leave the premises until they were. He was arrested for trespassing, NOT because of his beliefs.

          1. I Do not think his demand is unreasonable. In K the only way homosexuality will be discussed is if the teacher facilitates such talk. If the child with homosexual parents were to talk about his weekend && the student ask the teacher why Jimmy has two moms the teacher should simply say ‘I think that is something you need to discuss with your parents.’ this would keep the child from being involved with talks about homosexuality. And in many states sexual education && tolerance is taught as young as K.

            Yet another reason to keep kids out of public schools.

          2. But this is what the father wanted. The father wanted his child removed from the situation whenever homosexuality was being discussed, whether it was planned or “ad hoc.” This was not reasonable. Although, frankly, it probably would NOT have come up, the teacher could not have predicted when it would and it would have been disruptive to have to suddenly remove the child every time it did. “Ooops! Sally is about to talk about her family! Got to get Jimmy out of the room!”

            If his parents wanted this level of control, they needed to homeschool. And apparently this is what eventually happened. Whether this level of control is actually necessary is a whole different discussion. Would it really be THAT terrible for Jimmy to know that Sally has two mommies? Couldn’t Jimmy’s parents just say, “Yes, Sally has two mommies. They think this is fine. We don’t. No, it’s not necessary for you to tell Sally that we think it’s sinful. Yes, it’s fine for you to play with Sally on the playground.” Or whatever they think is appropriate.

  15. In the case of the 13yo boy who didn’t want to go to church quite so often, I’ve googled to try and find more information and found the exact paragraph repeated many times. The source is a case litigated by Michael Farris in the early eighties — almost THIRTY YEARS AGO — so not exactly hot news, and with few additional details given. No names, no references, no links to news stories or court records. Is there more to the story? Probably, but no way to know.

  16. Imagine the following scenario:

    6yo Jeannie is playing on the playground during recess and is stung by a bee. She begins to breathe heavily and swell up, and the school nurse fears that she is having a severe allergic reaction. An ambulance is called, and so is Jeannie’s mother. As the ambulance arrives, Jeannie’s mother says, “Oh, no, she doesn’t need an ambulance. She’s been stung by a bee before. I’ll come get her and take her to her pediatrician.”

    What should the school do? Should they send Jeannie to the ER in the ambulance, or should they abide by mom’s wishes?

    1. The school nurse should let Jeannie’s mom know she feels the girl *may* be having an allergic reaction. (the nurse can’t legally diagnose it as such) and let Jeannie’s mom make the decision. After all, the child does not belong to the school! And the mother knows well more about her daughter && her daughter’s health && reactions than any school nurse could.

      The child is ultimately the parent’s responsibility and ward… Not the school’s, the nurse’s, or the state’s.

      1. And the school nurse would likely have had a dead child on her hands before the mom could even get there.

        1. Your speculating. Obviously the mother has a reason she Feels the child should see her pediatrician. She has seen her daughters reaction to bee stings. Maybe her physician instructed her to bring the child in.

          You imply that parents are ignorant && unable to make basic choices regarding their child!! The majority of parents have the child’s best interest at heart.

          1. I’m implying that the school nurse is THERE, sees that the child is in distress, and is making the best medical decision she can to call 911. Do you think she doesn’t have the child’s best interest at heart? Children DIE of bee stings. Second bee stings are often much worse than first bee stings.

          2. If this imaginary child has been stung by a bee before, why doesn’t the school have an epi-pen stored in the nurses office for her (as was the case for me when I was in school, and is now the case for my daughter who is now in elementary school)? Probably because this IMAGINARY child is in fact NOT going to DIE from a bee sting. You can have a severe reaction with out DEATH being the final outcome. Do you even have children? Would you want a stranger in a decision making role for them? Or would you want your judgement over your children respected, because you know them best and have had previous experiences that assure you your child is NOT in danger. By the way, who pays for the unnecessary ambulance ride? I assure you it won’t be the school.

  17. I’ll go you one better. The NJ couple is being investigated not for being ‘too Christian’ but for extensive evidence of child abuse. This is buried under the rhetoric, however. The couple has admitted to using corporal punishment, and at least one child died in their care. That’s why they’re investigating.

    It’s actually quite difficult to lose your children to CHP. The CHP has to make quite a case. My friend’s daughter was neglecting her baby entirely due to mental illness, but it was absolutely impossible for her to get even temporary custody. There was a remarkable amount of paperwork filed – reams! The truth is that the courts try incredibly hard to keep children with their parents.

  18. @ Barb, I appreciate you tracking down the info. I like receiving the truthful info in context and without presupposition…not information fitted to the “issue.”

    For the record, my children are in public school and have always been able to be checked out at my will. I dont even have to supply a reason. Most likely, these are secluded cases and hyped up to get us to divert as a tyranny of the urgent.

    1. Ellowynne,

      It would be wonderful to live in a state of denial, ignoring the reality of what’s happening, pretending it’s all “hyped-up”. But that sort of denial and apathy is why we are facing the slippery slope of tyranny ourselves. This has been happening for a while, yes, some isolated cases, but each case setting a precedent for the next.

      Consider this case in 2005:

      “When parents of school children in Palmdale, California learned from their sons and daughters that they had been questioned in their public elementary school about sexual topics such as the frequency of “thinking about having sex” and “thinking about touching other peoples’ private parts,” some of them exercised their constitutional right to take their grievance to the courts. The questioning was part of a survey the Palmdale School District was conducting regarding psychological barriers to learning.” (quoting from the judicial decision)

      Note: the “mental health counselor” (and why was she there anyway?) sent a letter informing parents about the survey but did not mention any sexual content included therein.

      The answer from the court of appeals:

      In summary, we hold that there is no free-standing fundamental right of parents “to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs” and that the asserted right is not encompassed by any other fundamental right. In doing so, we do not quarrel with the parents’ right to inform and advise their children about the subject of sex as they see fit. We conclude only that the parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on that subject to their students in any forum or manner they select. We further hold that a psychological survey is a reasonable state action pursuant to legitimate educational as well as health and welfare interests of the state. (again, quoting from the judicial decision)”

      1. More information: The parents were informed ahead of time that the survey included questions about trauma (including violence), and that the questions might make the children feel uncomfortable. They were given the choice to exempt their children from the survey. The survey did not teach about sexuality. It asked 10 questions about sexuality out of a total of 79 questions.

        1. Barb,

          You didn’t supply “more information”. I already stated that in my comment. “Note: the “mental health counselor” (and why was she there anyway?) sent a letter informing parents about the survey but did not mention any sexual content included therein.”

          So because “there were only 10 questions” they shouldn’t have cared? This was an elementary school. I would have been irate. Frankly, I would have been opposed to having a mental health care professional in the classroom at all. There are actually some parents who don’t want any discussion of sex to their very young children–and that absolutely should be a fundamental parental right. What happened to the role of education being to teach the basic academic subjects? At BEST, the school should offer such extra “classes” or information to parents who request them because they choose to abdicate their responsibility and need someone else to handle these issues.

          The schools should be extremely yielding, if they’re going to offer such subject matter, to parents who do not wish their children to be exposed to things outside of academics.

          1. Kelly, I did provide additional information. You didn’t say, for instance, that the parents had been informed that the questions were about trauma and might make the children uncomfortable. I also added the information that the parents were given the parents to opt their kids out of the survey. You didn’t mention that.

            Had I been one of those parents, I, too, would have preferred to have known that they were going to ask questions of a sexual nature. But,

            A. I would have remembered that I had the option to opt my child out, knowing that the questions were potentially traumatizing and

            B. I would have remembered that when I CHOSE to enroll my child in public school I did so realizing that I was giving up a certain amount of control.

            All that said, it wouldn’t bother me if someone asked those questions of my kids. Go ahead. Judge me.

          2. “I would have remembered that when I CHOSE to enroll my child in public school I did so realizing that I was giving up a certain amount of control.”

            Barb, do you not see the inherent flaw in that line of reasoning?

            You have described, perfectly, the mentality that permeates much of public education – that enrolling a child in this system is tantamount to handing them over, the parents are to essentially check them at the door. The parents become the overnight care providers, the State becomes the parent, offering up to 12 hours a day of care (so the parents can go to work, to pay more taxes, to fund the schools, that care for their children, so they can go to work….), the (sorry excuses for) meals, the moral agenda, the social structure, the political message. The parents are ultimately held responsible for the childs safety, provision, and performance, but all of those things are dictated by the State, according to funding and diagrams and agenda, rather than individual need. Academic education has become a secondary consideration, and the giving up of control you speak of so casually extends into the home, after school hours – entire family existences are now planned around school. I’m sorry, but that’s not for academics sake.

            And as far as choosing to enroll in public school – a parent or family without home or religious school options would be compelled by most states to enroll their children in public school, and would not have a choice, yet their tax dollars are being spent just like yours to support messages that are directly counter to their moral beliefs. Are you suggesting that they should just suck it up and tell their kids to cover their ears? Why can’t the kids who don’t want to hear prayers just cover their ears? The inconsistent application of the “rules” reveals the strategy.
            (and please spare me any and all military and infrastructure arguments, as those are both constitutionally legitimate expenditures, and if I drove off a cliff every time I got in my car I hope I’d live to voice my complaint about that failure, too.).

    2. No problem, Ellowynne. I wonder sometimes if (some) homeschoolers think that in order to justify their own decisions they need to create a fear of the other options. There are certainly enough positive reasons for homeschooling that there’s no need to demonize public schools/ public schoolers.

      FTR, I homeschooled my older kids (both in college now) and loved every minute of it. My youngest is in public school and thriving there. Different kids, different circumstances, both good options.

  19. All I can say is “some” people have more patience than I. I would not have the patience to explain something 6-8 times.

  20. My partner and i do not know things to declare. That web site is great. It is not significantly the in fact significant statement, nevertheless its all I could develop following scanning this. You already know a good deal about this subject theme. A great deal in order that you made myself need to learn much more about the idea. Your site is my own stepping stone, my buddy. Good oversees within this matter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *