Twenty Years and Waiting…. Yet Nothing

parental rights

June 29th marks 20 years since Senator Grassley introduced
THE PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ACT OF 1995 to Congress. To the best of our knowledge there has not been legislation like it introduced since. It is important to note that this was almost two years before the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. One can only wonder how many lives the Act would have protected or changed for the better… how many lives saved.

The following is the transcript of the introductory speech by Mr. GRASSLEY:

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act of 1995 to reaffirm the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. While most parents assume this right is protected, some lower courts and Government bureaucrats have acted to limit this basic freedom. The bill I am introducing will protect the family from unwarranted intrusions by the Government. Congressmen Steve Largent and Mike Parker have joined me to pursue this initiative.
While the Constitution does not explicitly address the parent-child relationship, the Supreme Court clearly regards the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children as a fundamental right under the 14th amendment to the Constitution. Fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech and religion receive the highest legal protection. Two cases in the 1920’s affirmed the Court’s high regard for the integrity of the parent-child relationship. In Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), the Court declared that the 14th amendment,

[W]ithout doubt, . . . denotes not merely freedom from
bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to . .
. marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship
God according to the dictates of his own conscience. . . .

The second important case was Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). In this case, the Court declared that:

[In] this day and under our civilization, the child of man
is his parent’s child and not the state’s . . . It is not
seriously debatable that the parental right to guide one’s
child intellectually and religiously is a most substantial
part of the liberty and freedom of the parent.

The Court went on to hold that parents are chiefly responsible for the education and upbringing of their children.

While the Supreme Court’s intent to protect parental rights is unquestionable, lower courts have not always followed this high standard to protect the parent-child relationship. The recent lower court assault on the rights of parents to direct their children’s education, health care decisions, and discipline is unprecedented.

Several examples of lower court cases will demonstrate the need for this bill. A group of parents in Chelmsford, MA, sued when their children were required to sit through a 90-minute AIDS awareness presentation by “Hot, Sexy, and Safer Productions, Inc.” In this so-called group sexual experience students were instructed to engage in activities which some parents considered outrageous and pornographic. When the parents challenged the propriety of the school’s actions, the court held that the parents, who were never told about the presentation, did not have a right to know and consent to this sexually explicit program before their children were required to attend.

The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that it was not a violation of parents’ rights to remove an eighth-grade child from her family because she objected to the ground rules established in the home. The parents in this case grounded their daughter because she wanted to smoke marijuana and sleep with her boyfriend. She objected, and the courts removed her from the home. Most parents would consider these rules imminently reasonable. But the court held that although the family structure is a fundamental institution of our society, and parental prerogatives are entitled to considerable legal deference, they are not absolute and must yield to fundamental rights of the child or important interests of the state.

Recent news accounts reported of a father who was accused of child abuse because he publicly spanked his 4-year-old daughter. When she deliberately slammed the car door on her brother’s hand, her father acted promptly to discipline her by a reasonably administered spanking. A passer-by called the police and the father had to defend against the charge of child abuse. While the father won his case, it is amazing to most parents that they could be dragged into court against their will to defend against such an outrageous charge as child abuse for disciplining their child for open rebellion.
Unfortunately, these cases are only a few of the many examples of parents’ rights being violated when trying to direct the training and nurturing of their children. Recent public debate has also contributed to the movement to violate parental rights.

Dr. Jack Westman of the University of Wisconsin-Madison proposes that the State license parents as a means of conveying the seriousness of the parental responsibility. While there is no question of the awesome responsibility to raise and nurture a child, the proposal to have the State license potential parents for the right to have children raises many serious questions. Who will decide what will be the appropriate standards for parenthood? These and other questions stretch the imagination of freedom loving American parents.

With recent lower court cases and the flow of public debate around “Parental licensing”, it is easy to see the need for the Parental Rights Act of 1995.

The goal of the PRA is to reaffirm the parental right to direct the upbringing of their children in four major areas: First, Directing or providing for the education of the child; two, making health care decisions for the child; three, disciplining the child, including reasonable corporal discipline; and four, directing or providing for the religious teaching of the child.
The PRA accomplishes this goal by simply clarifying for lower courts and administrative tribunals that the proper standard to use in disputes between the Government and parents is the highest legal standard available. This standard, known as “The Compelling Interest Standard” means that before the Government can interfere in the parent-child relationship, it must demonstrate that there is a compelling interest to protect and that the means the Government is using to protect this interest is the least restrictive means

Practically speaking, this means that the law in question is not so broad in application that it sweeps in more than is necessary to protect the interest in question.

An example will help to clarify this point. Unfortunately, there are parents who abuse and neglect their children. Clearly, protecting children from abuse and neglect would fit into any reasonable person’s definition of a compelling interest of the State. One of the stated
purposes of the PRA is to protect children from abuse and neglect.

Another stated goal is to recognize that protecting children in these circumstances is a compelling Government interest. Abusing or neglecting your child has never been considered a protected parental right.

Using the least restrictive means available to protect children from abuse and neglect means that a parents who are appropriately meeting their child’s needs could not fall victim to an overzealous State law. The law would be written in such a way that it would cover parents who are abusing or neglecting their children but it would not cover parents
who are not.

If the law is written so poorly that even good, loving parents could be accused of child abuse, it would not pass the test of being the least restrictive means available and would have to be modified. You might ask, “How is the PRA going to work?” It uses the traditional four-step process to evaluate fundamental rights which balances the interests of parents, children and the Government. First, parents are required to demonstrate that the actions being questioned are within their fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their child.

Second, they must show that the Government interfered with this right. If the parents are able to prove these two things, then the burden shifts to the Government to show that the interference was essential to accomplish a compelling Government interest and that the
Government’s method of interfering was the least restrictive means to accomplish its goal.

In these cases, the court would balance the parents’ right to make decisions on behalf of their children against the Government’s right to intervene in the family relationship and decide what was the proper balance.

While it would be better if lower courts and administrative agencies would use the appropriate legal standard outlined by the Supreme Court without Congress having to clarify the standard, the history shows this is not likely to occur. My bill will clarify this standard with finality.

Two specific concerns were raised that I want to address. The first is from child abuse prosecutors and advocates. As we moved through discussions on the early drafts of this bill, I made clear that I firmly believed child abuse and neglect is a compelling Government interest.

With this in mind, I incorporated suggestions from prosecutors and advocates on this issue. I am comfortable that the changes made address their concerns.

The second issue was infanticide and abortion. The National Right to Life Committee was concerned that the bill would overturn the baby doe laws protecting handicapped children after birth. After consultation with other attorneys who agreed that this was a concern, I changed my draft to clarify that the PRA could not be used in this way.

The second point that NRL raised was that the PRA would somehow empower parents to coerce a young woman to have an abortion against her wishes. This is because the PRA allows parents to make health care decisions for their child unless the parents’ neglect or refusal to act will risk the life of the child or risk serious physical injury to the
child. I have consulted with other pro-life organizations and advocates who do not share this concern and have endorsed the bill.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is critical to the proper balance of parents’  rights against the Government’s actions. Without the PRA, lower courts, Government bureaucrats, and administrative tribunals will continue to interfere needlessly in the parent-child relationship.

About Jim Black

Jim Black is the founder of Angel Eyes over Texas (AEovrT). Jim is a former Manufacturing Engineer turned CPS Watchdog. Jim spent more than 32 years studying manufacturing companies, their procedures and the proper application of their resources with heavy emphasis on Quality Control, Automated Systems and Resource Management. Now those same skills are applied toward analyzing Texas DFPS and it's functions; breaking down the mechanics of how the agency fails to follow the policies, statutes and rules set forth by the State of Texas. Jim tracks all changes to the Texas CPS Handbook on Jim often consults with CPS defense attorneys on handbook research.
This entry was posted in Family Rights. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Twenty Years and Waiting…. Yet Nothing

  1. Christina says:

    My name is christina and i am for this bill to be passed and effective immediatly.too many children are being taken under false allegations,untrue statements and fabricated paperwork.children alienated from their parents at a young age only for ad litems not doing theirbjobs and sitting back and waiting for the 12 month lapse for them to say they are bonded with foster parents.our children are our children by blood amd there will always be a bond between mother and child and to say anything on thr contrary is inhumane..reunification of children with parents whobhave been wrongfully accused,client based services and tramsparemcy in the family court system as well as the agency being held accountable for their actions is the only way to successfully fix this system.please pass this bill and return children and make the system do what it was built to do..keep families together and keep them safe.


  2. Cory OConnor says:

    Jim: I think it is outstanding that you bring this up, and now my question is how can this be re-addressed, and overturn the ASFA law of 1997? It is clear that now more than ever the states are over stepping the line, and have made it so that one could get the idea that when you have a child, it is a binding contract of sorts between the parents, and the state. I’ll take this to yet another step, and ask, when you have a child; in the eyes of the state is the child that of his or her parents, or is the child that of the state? If the state feels they should step into a family as such, then perhaps they should have to publish a hand book that is provided to every parent when a child is born explaining in detail how the state feels you should raze the child so as to not have them try and take over your life. My run with the state of Missouri is bitter, and hate filled, but I want others to learn from what they have done to me, and most of all, I want to find a way to make the abuse of families by the state to stop

    Thank you sir for your time.


  3. Pingback: Twenty Years and Waiting…. and Nothing | How Child Protection Services Buys and Sells Our Children | puremadangel's Blog

  4. Deborah Lynne Connor says:

    We need to abolish CPS, as Nancy and Bruce Shafer advocated!!!


  5. Carol says:

    I don’t think we need to abolish CPS but I do think they should be held to stricter guidelines as to what constitutes abuse and what does not. I know children that have been removed from homes where CPS did their job and thoroughly investigated the situation before removing them. It was a bad situation. However I also know that in the same jurisdiction children have been removed without just cause and the parents have fought for years to get them back, only to see them bounced from one family member or foster home to the next. When CPS was asked why they did not implement the same tactics with every case they replied that it was based on anonymous tips and they felt they had done what was right in the best interest of the child. These multiple standards need to be abolished and parents should have the right to know who is accusing them of wrong doing. Anyone can go out make a friend, family member, colleague or total stranger mad and if that person decides to call CPS with falsified stories then the family is left defending themselves. Also nothing happens to the accuser if it is found that he or she filed a false report with CPS. If I go out tomorrow and file a false police report and they find out I get charged and punished. The whole system is in place for a good reason, to help those who need it but with that said I feel strongly that action needs to be taken to make certain no one has their children removed under false pretense or without a thorough investigative report proving beyound doubt that the child is neglected or abused. Then and only then should anyone be able to remove a child.


    • I’m definitely for the Parental Rights Bill being reintroduced. About CPS, there needs to be more public education around the issues Carol raises above. In many instances, particularly when domestic violence and abuse propels custody issues into the family court arena, the actual abusing partner will get third-parties to do their dirty work for them, by calling in false allegations to CPS — a form of Abuse-By-Proxy (using third-parties to destabilize a targeted person’s life). Essentially, what they are doing is using and straining limited public resources for our most vulnerable population (children) for their own personal agendas. There needs to be more accountability in terms of those calling in the complaints that CPS carries out through investigational processes,
      to off-set this well known tactic used by abusers to corrupt a custody process. In doing so, adverse outcomes due to CPS intervention can be stopped, as well as additional draining of the limited resources available to carry out their mandated purpose — protecting children.


  6. Michelle says:

    This bill needs to be reintroduced. CPS worker’s clearly overstep their boundaries. I know for a fact, in Ohio that if an allegation is made against you for abuse the caseworker can document it as substantiated and when the parent is cleared of all allegation the substantiated claim remains the same. I am a victim of such matter and now it is preventing me from gaining custody of my grandson.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s