Do You Have a Fundamental Right to Raise Your Children?
There is a major movement among government officials and agencies to usurp parental rights and authority. It is based on word--fundamental.
The Supreme Court has identified specific categories of rights that are protected by the Constitution. The Court categorizes these rights as fundamental or non-fundamental, and either an explicit right or an implied right. The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental, implied right. Very few Americans would disagree with that. However, government agencies and court officials are attempting to define the government as "partners" with parents in raising their children declaring that parent's rights are non-fundamental when "the best interest of the child" is in question.
Reasonable thinking people would conclude the state would only enlist the "best interest of the child" scenario in cases of abuse or neglect. The problem is, the state is taking their imposed "partnership" role far beyond any reasonable "best interest" situation.
For instance, in the fall of 2014, Cassandra, a 17 year-old girl from Connecticut was taken from her mother by order of the court and forced to undergo chemotherapy against her will and wishes. Cassandra was diagnosed with hodgkin's lymphoma and decided, after receiving thorough medical advice that she did not want to receive chemotherapy. Her mother supported her decision and was then charged with neglect. The judge ordered Casandra be removed from her home and custody given to the Department of Child and Families (DCF). Cassandra retells the whole horrible ordeal in the following video.
According to an article on VOX.com...
DCF, acting on behalf of the state, says it's obligated to intervene in this case, stating, "It's their duty to act when a child would die if medical decisions were left up to the parent." That statement should send shock-waves through your brain. Parents are deemed incapable or even "unauthorized" to make life or death decisions for and behalf of their children because of the state's "best interest of the child" mantra.
In this case the "best interest of the child" led to Cassandra being taken from home and family, put into the custody of strangers and forced into a hospital where her legs and arms were strapped down so the hospital staff could forcibly administer chemo drugs--all while be supervised by police. Cassandra was terrified, emotionally distraught and angry. Her story still baffles families and any reasonable-thinking person. But her case is not the only such case.
In 2013 two California parents had their baby taken from them by force simply because they wanted a second opinion on their baby's medical care. Their infant son was undergoing care for a heart condition. They took him to the hospital when he became sick but were very concerned with the treatment their son was given. They told the doctors they wanted a second opinion and left the hospital. Immediately after leaving they took their son another hospital where he was treated and released. The next day CPS (Child Protective Services) and half dozen police showed up on their door and took their baby by force citing "severe neglect."
"I'm going to grab your baby," said one of the police officers. "Don't resist."
As they were leaving the mother asked the CPS agent where they were taking her baby. The CPS agent responded, "We are not going to tell you right now because...I don't think you're acting rationally right now."
When a mother is faced with the irrational acts of those taking her child it is completely understandable why she would be upset. While the DCF agent accused this mother of acting irrationally, a mother acting to protect her child is the most rational person in this entire situation.
Alex and Anna Nikolayev are from a Communist regime where things like this are common occurrence--but not in America. "Its like parents have not rights at all," said Alex. They share their story and the video of their child being taken in the videos below.
No one wants to see a child hurt but the fact is, the government system set up to protect children is too many cases doing exactly the opposite. As one woman said, "We're taking kids from places that aren't that bad, putting them in places that aren't that good and completely leaving out of the equation the bond between parent and children."
When the government can decide if a parent's rights are fundamental or non-fundamental and have the power to use armed police to force you to surrender your children to their will simply because they said so the system is definitely broken.
An organization--ParentalRights.org--has emerged out of this deep concern. They are actively seeking a constitutional amendment declaring parents' rights as fundamental. Read the Amendment Here
The organization presents a compelling case for adopting such an amendment. To better understand the difference between fundamental and non-fundamental rights, as recognized by the United States Supreme Court Click Here. You can also find this information on the Parental Rights website where you can also add your support to the amendment should you choose to do so.
The issue of Parental Rights has now become a worldwide one. In November 1989 a treaty was signed proclaiming a world-wide regime of human rights for children. It is titled the Convention on the Rights of the Child or CRC and it poses tremendous threats (already evidenced) to the right of parents to raise and nurture their children.
By September 1990 the CRC had been ratified by twenty nations. As of 2016 the CRC has been ratified by 193 nations making it the most widely adopted human rights treaty of any kind. Only two nations have not ratified it--the United States and Somalia. Both the U.S. and Somalia have signed the CRC but neither has received the approval required by law to become an official law of the land. In the United States it has to pass through Congress.
Madeline Albright signed the treaty on behalf of the United States in 1995 while serving as US Ambassador to the United Nations. Then First Lady Hillary Clinton proclaimed it a great victory but her husband never sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification.
It is important to understand the ramifications of this treaty and what it means if the US ratifies it.
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution declares all treaties to be the law of the land. That means any treaties we sign with foreign nations become part of our national law, superior to all state laws and state constitutions. Almost all law governing the parent-child relationship is state law, not federal law so the CRC, as a ratified treaty, would supersede the vast majority of U.S. law regarding children.
Just dismissing UN treaties, as insignificant is therefore a grave mistake. We need to take them seriously because our court systems certainly will and with parental rights already being so severely threatened the CRC is something we need to know about, understand, and fight against.
Michael Farris, chairman of Home School Legal Defense Association and Chancellor of Patrick Henry College has written an excellent legal analysis on the CRC. You can DOWNLOAD the REPORT HERE.
Mr. Farris states in his report:
"The CRC is not a mere statement of altruism or political philosophy but rather a legal instrument with potentially binding legal consequences....
"If the United States becomes a party to this treaty, then it will have both a legal and moral duty to implement and obey the provisions contained therein. The duty of comply with the treaty would fall on the national government. Thus, Congress, not the states, would have the duty under international law to implement all provisions in the treaty.
"By ratifying this treaty, Congress would not only acquire the duty to implement the treaty, Congress would also acquire the jurisdiction necessary to directly legislate on education, healthcare, and family life. Under current law, Congress cannot enact laws that directly govern these areas. Generally speaking, if Congress wants to regulate something in one of these areas, it enacts federal funding for the states but conditions the receipt of the funds on the state's implementation of the prescribed federal guidelines.
"This would change if the CRC is ratified. For example, the treaty clearly bans all corporal punishment, including spanking by parents. Currently, only the states can regulate corporal punishment. But if the CRC were ratified, Congress would have both the power and the duty to implement legislation which directly imposes legal sanctions against parents spank their children."
Mr. Farris goes into much more detail on the draconian nature of this treaty, its origins, and how it has already severely impacted those nations who have already ratified it. We highly recommend reading Michael Farris's Full Report.
The below video is an interview with members of ParentalRights.org. It provides a very good overview of CRC and how would impact American families and the very fiber of our culture if ratified by Congress.
"If anything is more fundamental,
its the parent-child relationship."
~Leon Koziol, Constitutional Attorney
Your Children are NOT Yours???
Melissa Harris-Perry is an American writer, professor, television host, and political commentator and she thinks your children do not belong to you. Email us and let us know what you think about this ad and Melissa's claim on your children.
Who Owns Your Children?
FreedomProject Education's Executive Director Alan Scholl discusses the change in direction, leadership, and intent of American Education.
Parenting is a Fundamental Right
Interview with Constitutional Attorney Leon Koziol on FITTV "Constitution and Family Law Reform"
Attorney Michelle MacDonald testifies on the fundamental rights of parents to raise their own children.
Government Forces 17 Year-old with Cancer to undergo Chemotherapy Read Full Story
This video was created to help promote the Convention on the Rights of the Child or CRC
It is very open in their objectives and should raise great concern among parents around the world.
This Video was created for children to help them see the benefits of the CRC and convince adults to adopt it. Can you imagine what a "Right to Leisure" could lead to when enforced by the law?