Not OUR Children Now....
Document 029.16.0.0 # 29 >>>>Disclaimer: This document may be used as
you will except: If you change anything in the text, remove my name and
other Ident. You may use it without my identification also if you wish...I
only ask that people read it and think...think...think. Sources/Ref's if not
in the text will be found on the last page of Doc 000.0.0.1 and 000.0.6.
CLMsr.<<<<
We have a Constitution and our Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) that
makes us free. Right? Then visit:
http://www.trimonline.org
http://www.getusout.org
http://www.thenewamerican.com
http://www.givemeliberty.org
http://nca.mybravenet.com
http://www.jbs.org
Then take a look at these sites:
http://www.dixierising.com
http://www.dixienet.org
http://www.palmetto.org
http://www.southerncaucus.org
http://www.spofga.org
http://www.southern-style.com
http://www.freedom.org
Not Our Children Now. Subject: License to Seize Our Children.....Date:
Tuesday, March 13, 2001
By Berit Kjos <www.crossroad.to> 1994
http://crossroad.to/articles2/License-DSS.htm
Can social workers remove children from parents without proof of abuse,
without a court order, without explanation, and without liability?
Yes, they can. On April 25, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a U.S. Courts
of Appeals ruling that social workers are entitled to "absolute immunity
from liability" which "ensures that they [social workers] are not deterred
from vigorously performing their jobs as they might if they feared personal
liability. "[i] The high court rejected an appeal from Ian Hoffman, a father
who was arrested and stripped of his right to see his daughter resulting
from false allegations of child abuse. The two social workers who brought
the allegations neither questioned the child nor allowed the father a chance
to respond.
That Hoffman was later cleared by a jury and awarded permanent custody of
his child doesn't change the effects of the high court's 7-to-2 vote. Given
vast discretionary power to punish families believed to violate their
standards, today's social workers may confiscate children and divide
families without accountability to the public that they supposedly serve.
Apparently parents have little or no recourse.
Which parents are at risk?
If you are "indoctrinating your children with Christian beliefs" and
teaching them Biblical standards, beware! Christian beliefs, values, and
disciplines are considered too narrow and exclusive for the envisioned 21st
Century global society. In her article, "Children are not Chattel," Kathy
Collins, Legal Counsel to the Iowa Department of Education, summarized the
growing hostility toward Christians: "The Christian fundamentalists who want
the freedom to indoctrinate their children with religious education do not
understand [that] the law that prevents them from legally teaching their
kids prevents someone else from abusing theirs."[ii] In simpler words,
training your child according to Biblical truth is equated with child abuse.
If "Parents As Teachers" - a parent training service mandated by Clinton's
Goals 2000 - has already been implemented in your school district, beware!
You will be taught how to teach your pre-schoolers according to politically
correct guidelines. Your Christian beliefs and values could put your child
in the school's "at risk" category, since they prevent the child from
starting school with an open mind, ready to embrace today's multi-cultural
blend of the world's earth-centered religions. Any resistance to this
program will be noted in the computerized tracking system and could lead to
the confiscation of your child.
If your public schools are already joined to on-site health clinics, watch
out! Parental rights to counsel and instruct their own children when they
face moral, mental and physical challenges will be superseded by politically
correct guidance from a team of educators, psychologists, and social
workers. This team will be trained to equip students with the beliefs and
values fit for the envisioned new world order where individuals will serve
the common good.
If you use reasonable spanking as a means of loving discipline, watch out!
A member of the special education team at a Reno, Nevada school asked a
delightful eight-year old student,[iii] "Do your parents ever spank you?"
"Yes," answered the boy. After a futile check for bruises on his body, a
school official called the parents and informed them that if they ever
spanked their son again, he would be removed from their home.
If you are trying to train willful children to live safe, moral lives in a
culture wracked by violence and immorality, beware! Hoping to find safety
in America, Jio Saephan brought his family from war-torn Laos to San
Francisco. Last January, seven-year-old Vourn "played recklessly"[iv] with a
kitchen knife, frightening his grandmother. She told his father,
who -according to Laotian traditions - disciplined him with a slap on his
hand with the dull part of the knife, leaving a small bruise. The next day,
Vourn's teacher noticed the bruise which was next to a more noticeable
scratch from playing with a steel gate. She asked what happened, and
reported the boy's responses. Later, social workers entered Saephan's
apartment and, without any explanation, took Vourn and his four healthy
siblings and put them in foster homes.
Vourn's five-week-old brother, who always slept with his mother, died
within weeks. The social workers said he died from "sudden infant death
syndrome," but the mother isn't convinced. When she visited her baby, his
clothes stank of cigarette smoke. Seeking help from her social worker was
futile. "She yell at me," said the mother. "I say, I worry about my baby.
His clothes smell so bad."[v]
After her baby died, the mother wasn't allowed to come near him for four
days. When she finally did see the tiny body, she noticed a bruise on his
forehead. She believes he was dropped.[vi] The state has forbidden the
heart-broken father to visit his children without the presence of social
workers. To regain his parental rights, he must attend contemporary
parenting classes. Sometimes pain and confusion overwhelms him. "In our
culture, when a kid doesn't listen, you discipline him," he said. "In
American culture, you don't lay a hand on the kid. When they grow up, they
don't listen to parents. They want to do whatever they want to do. I don't
want my kid to grow up like that."[vii] The Coalition of Concerned Parents
in San Jose, called little Seng's death "an indictment on the failure of the
whole child protective services system in the state of California."[viii]
Seng Saephan's death is merely one of a string of abuses. One week later
another baby died. Social workers had refused to give the grandmother
custody of little Jorge Millan because her "house was too small." The
toddler died from perforated intestines when the foster mother put a shower
hose first into his mouth, then in his rectum. During supervised visits,
Jorge's family noticed cuts and bruises on his head. They filed complaints
but apparently received no response.[ix] Mounting evidence indicates that
the system is quick to punish biological parents, but dangerously tolerant
toward other abusers.
"The seemingly unlimited power of child welfare agencies and the case
workers they employ has some parents too demoralized and fearful to
discipline unruly kids,"[x] writes Washington Post editor Dana Mack. She
quotes a mother who just endured a painful encounter with Texas' child
protection agency. "You're never able to be the same with your kids after
you go through an investigation. I've become paranoid... and less able to
discipline."[xi] In her article, "Child-Abuse Bureaucracy a New Parent
Trap," Mack reports that "While 39 percent of the over 2.6 million reports
of child maltreatment each year are substantiated, only 3 percent of these
cases involve injury to a child requiring any medical attention. Indeed,
substantiated cases of child abuse include incredibly mild transgressions. A
Florida couple was convicted of abuse for restricting a foster child's
television viewing. "A San Diego grand jury recently found that the local
child protective system had 'isolated itself to a degree unprecedented in
our system of jurisprudence and ordered liberties.' But our lawmakers have
for the most part failed to respond to such warnings. Aware of the enormous
media attention given to the subject of child abuse, they are unwilling to
appear 'insensitive' to the sufferings of children. By not acting, our
elected officials are helping to maintain a system that has proven
unfriendly to family life and ultimately hazardous to the well-being of
American children."[xii]
Ian Hoffman's damage suit which ended at the Supreme Court, demonstrates
the alarming shift from parental rights to state controls. Only two
justices, Clarence Thomas and Atonin Scalia, voted to hear his case. Seven
refused, in spite of the federal civil rights law which promises that "Every
person who under [state law]... subjects... any other person to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the
Constitution... shall be liable to the party injured." Today, the police
and other investigators can be sued if they violate "clearly established"
rights of citizens. Social workers apparently cannot. "The District
court held that the social workers were absolutely immune from damages
liability for this conduct. Relying on its decision in Salyer v. Patrick,
874 F. 2d 374 (CA6 1989), the Court of Appeals affirmed. ...the decision
below and other decisions granting absolute immunity to social workers may
be premised more on the notion that absolute immunity serves important
policy concerns than on either historical or functional analyses. See, e.g.,
Meyers, 812 F. 2d, at 1157. To the extent they are so based, they are
misguided: The federal courts 'do not have a license to establish immunities
from section 1983 actions in the interest of what [they] judge to be sound
public policy.'
".We should address the important threshold question whether social workers
are, under any circumstances, entitled to absolute immunity. Accordingly, I
respectfully dissent Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting in the Supreme
Court's denial of petition for writ of certiorari in Hofman v. Harris,
April 25, 1994. We shouldn't be surprised this legal and political assault
on the family.
The Biblical disciplines that established and sustained freedom in America
have faded from public life. Since our nation no longer knows God nor
follows His Word, our rights have eroded along with our values. That God
assigned parents the role of training children (Proverbs 22:6) means little
to officials who scorn His ways. Let us pray like Daniel (9:3-19) to our
sovereign Lord, confessing personal and national sins, and asking for His
gracious mercy for children and parents who are now at risk from harmful
government intervention.
The son of a personal friend of mine. The mother described the circumstance
and cited the words in a telephone conversation. To protect the privacy of
the family, I prefer not to give the name unless necessary.
"... our efforts as educators must not be directed to restoring the past
order of morality but to participating in creating a new one... when it is
shed there will be a new moral order to take it's place... a counterculture
that will burst through the surface."
(Roberta T. Ash; "Durkheim's Moral Education Reconsidered: Toward the
Creation of a Counterculture". In SCHOOL REVIEW, November, 1971, p. 112)
029.16.0.0 # 29 End.
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary
Americans." Comrade Pres W. J. Klinton. USAToday. 11 Mar 93. Pg 2A. "You
know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to
have their fair say." Comrade Pres W. J. Klinton. 28 May 93. The Courtyard.
City Hall, Philadelphia. "I'm not going to have some reporters pawing
through our papers. We are the President." Comrade Hillary Diane Klinton.