Teddy James

AFA Journal staff writer

March 2016 – John* was 13 years old in 1984 when he approached his school counselor about a problem in his home. His parents took him to church too often. The counselor listened patiently and sympathetically. She felt so much sympathy that she called social services, which immediately placed John in foster care. He was not allowed to return home that Friday afternoon.

Instead, he was placed with a foster family for the weekend. The following week, John’s parents hired a young Michael Farris to represent them in court to bring their son home. Following a recently passed law in Washington state, the judge decided John’s case was strong. He ruled that taking a teenager to church once a week is sufficient for any religion. If the parents violated his ruling, the state would take custody of John.

This was the first time Farris saw a clear and distinct violation of parental rights. Since 1984, the year of the ruling, he has seen many more. It drove him to create Home School Legal Defense Association and ParentalRights.org, two organizations fighting for the preservation and protection of parental rights across the United States.

Historical attacks
“There have been attacks against parental rights for almost 100 years,” said Will Estrada, director of federal relations for HSLDA and ParentalRights.org. “But three landmark Supreme Court cases defined and still protect parental rights.”

Meyer v State of Nebraska in 1923 stated parents had the freedom to choose to enroll their children in public or private school. The majority opinion stated, “It is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station of life.”

Two years later, the Supreme Court reaffirmed this opinion in Pierce v Society of Sisters with the majority saying, “The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for the additional obligations.”

The final case of the trilogy is Wisconsin v Yoder (1972) in which the majority said, “The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.”

Modern attacks
Unfortunately, parental rights’ seat at the table of enduring American tradition(s) “is quickly eroding away,” Estrada told AFA Journal. “Modern threats to parental rights started in the 1990s. One of the flagship threats was, and is, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.” This UN treaty has the same core language as the Washington law used in the ruling against John’s parents.

Of the many provisions in the UNCRC that should trouble American parents, one is especially dangerous. It states that all judiciary decisions should be based on “the best interest of the child.” While this sounds positive, David Miranda, national grassroots director for ParentalRights.org, offered a strong caution.

“In relation to parental rights,” Miranda said, “the ‘best interest of the child’ precedent allows the government (rather than the parent) to decide what is in the best interest of the child. When you have that as the basis, parents lose most of the time.”

Previous Supreme Court decisions established the idea that a safe home with loving parents is always in the best interest of the child, but the UNCRC disagrees. ParentalRights.org says in an article, “Instead of placing the burden of proof on the government to prove that a parent is unfit, the convention places the burden of proof on those who claim that other interests are more important than the state’s characterization of the ‘best interest’ of the child.”

Future protections
To ensure parental rights are recognized as fundamental, ParentalRights.org has drafted a constitutional amendment putting the protection of parents in the black and white of the Constitution. (See amendment below.)

But to see the amendment ratified, two-thirds of the Senate must approve it, and three-fourths of the states must ratify it.

“We do not want to make the mistake we saw in the marriage debate,” Estrada said, “where a decade ago people said, ‘We need to do something, but it will never get to the point that we need a constitutional amendment at the federal level.’ Then, when they tried to get one, there were no votes. We see that as deeply instructive and believe now is the time to put parental rights in the Constitution.”

While these actions must take place in Washington, D.C., there is much parents can do to help the amendment. Miranda said everyone who is concerned about protecting parental rights can visit ParentalRights.org to sign up for email alerts. When the amendment is presented in Congress, followers will be alerted to contact their representatives to gain support for the amendment. Also, Miranda urges all citizens to be more informed and learn how to be active in the movement. The group’s website offers many more resources, and he recommends Overruled, a 30-minute documentary (overruledmovie.com).

“The high levels of academia are right now questioning whether parents should have the right to teach their children their religion,” Miranda warned. “They believe it will benefit children to be informed on all the religious options available to them. That is why it is so important for us to amend the Constitution to protect the rights of parents as a fundamental right.”  
*Name changed to protect privacy

Proposed Parental Rights Amendment

Section 1: The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.
Section 2: The parental right to direct education includes the right to choose public, private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices within public schools for one’s child.
Section 3: The United States or any State shall not infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
Section 4: The parental rights guaranteed by this article shall not be denied or abridged on account of disability.
Section 5: No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

___________________
Learn more about this issue. Visit parentalrights.org.