How far do parents rights over their children go?

Originally posted by no1marauder
A real slippery slope fallacy. I specifically stated that parents don't have unlimited power over their children.

It seems we are agreed, then. The only question that remains is how much power parents should have over their children.

Long-standing precedent of the United States Supreme Court holds that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental liberty interest of parents in the care, custody and control of their children. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925).

In Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Court again confirmed that there is a constitutional dimension to the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents." 321 U.S. at 166. Subsequent cases applying this principle have explained that this constitutional liberty derives from the presumption that "natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children." Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 602 (1979).

In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated the importance of this interest in the case of Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), ruling that a Washington State statute allowing “any person” to petition for visitation was unconstitutional because it impermissibly infringed on the rights of parents.

In the seminal case of Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972), the Supreme Court upheld the principle that an unwed father could not be presumed to be an unfit parent, but was entitled to a hearing pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This case thus marks the connection between the substantive rights of parents and the procedural requirements necessary to protect those rights.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Fortunately, medicine has advanced far enough to make this question irrelevant.

Has it? Do you know anything about the Ritalin controversy in the US?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
The Gov. should go all the way, Parents should have no say.

I believe that usually leads either to communism or anarchy, which have both proved to be failing systems.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Also, homeopathy, alternative medicine etc. should be heavily taxed to steer people in the right direction.

The stockholders and stakeholders and shareholders of GlaxoMurky-SharpenedKlinenDough would like to thank you for the good unsolicited work you continue to do for them.




pst...and btw how's that scholarship working out? enough for you to live on and still cover all your expenses? Don't hesitate to drop us a line if you feeling the pinch of the recent gfc.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Has it? Do you know anything about the Ritalin controversy in the US?

Of course, there are mistakes still being made and people are on the wrong medication/treatment as we speak, and the political connections of the pharmaceuticals are dodgy at best. Still, conventional medicine is the best we have, so we'll just have to stick with it and hope it improves over time - and it will.

There may be a Ritalin controversy, but we know homeopathy, acupuncture, praying etc. don't work, so there's no harm in battling those.

Originally posted by kmax87
The stockholders and stakeholders and shareholders of GlaxoMurky-SharpenedKlinenDough would like to thank you for the good unsolicited work you continue to do for them.




pst...and btw how's that scholarship working out? enough for you to live on and still cover all your expenses? Don't hesitate to drop us a line if you feeling the pinch of the recent gfc.

You don't have to worry about my finances. I sure don't!