Ninth Circuit on Slams Parental Rights

That is our first mistake, admitting they are "government schools." They are not arms of the government, they are arms of the community, the community that pays property taxes to support and build them.

For too long we have let the left tell us what is in our best interests and it too must stop.

Be it marches, elections, civil disobedience or what, we need to band together and remind the government that it is "we the people," not them that are the government. They are merely our representatives. This goes for activist judges as well.

Did you actually read your own link? In it is a copy of the "consent letter" sent to parents.

1The letter states:
“Parental Consent

Dear Parent or Caregiver:

The Palmdale School District is asking your support in participating in a district-wide study of our first, third and fifth grade children. The study will be a part of a collaborative effort with The California School of Professional Psychology — CSPP/ Alliant International University, Children’s Bureau of Southern California and the Palmdale School District.

The goal of this assessment is to establish a community baseline measure of children’s exposure to early trauma (for example, violence). We will identify internal behaviors such as anxiety and depression and external behaviors such as aggression and verbal abuse. As a result, we will be designing a district wide intervention program to help children reduce these barriers to learning, which students can participate in. Please read this consent letter and if you agree, please sign and send it back to your school’s principal no later than December 20, 2001."

Nowhere do I see any mention that it may be uncomfortable to the child or even about sex, but "for example, violence." Please point out where this letter of consent warns parents their child would be asked questions of a sexual nature and that they would be "uncomfortable" with them.

My apologies, I see now where the decision broke the letter up it up into separate pages.

In the rest of the letter, I still find no mention of questions of a sexual nature, just mention of the child may feel uncomfortable;

"The assessment will consist of three, twenty-minute self-report measures, which will be given to your child on one day during the last week of January. This study is 100% confidential and at no time will the information
gathered be used to identify your child. Your child will not be photographed or videotaped. You may refuse to have your child participate or withdraw from this study at any time without any penalty or loss of services to which your child is entitled.

[—page break—]

I am aware that the research study coordinator, Kristi Seymour, one research assistant, the Palmdale School District, Director of Psychology, Michael Geisser, and a professor from CSPP, will be the only people who have access to the study’s information. After the study is completed, all information will be locked in storage and then destroyed after a period of five years.

I understand answering questions may make my child feel uncomfortable. If this occurs, then, Kristi Seymour, the research study coordinator, will assist us in locating a therapist for further psychological help if necessary.

If I have further questions, I may contact Kristi Seymour at 1529 E. Palmdale Blvd., Suite 210, Palmdale, CA 93550 at 661.272.9997 x128. I understand that I will not be able to get my child’s individual results due to anonymity of the children, but I may get a summary report of the study results.

I have read this form and understand what it says. I her[e]by agree to allow my child to participate in this district-wide study.” (emphasis in original). Additionally, two lines were made available on the “Parental Consent” form for the “Parent/Caregiver” to sign and date it. 15065 FIELDS v. PALMDALE SCHOOL DIST."

"I assume you have no concept of what morality is since you consider morality to comprise a part of the public school curriculum. Morality is not germane to public education! Libertarians are known to be morally devoid -you take the cake!!!"

You don't know me at all, and you don't know what I think about morality in public schools, because I didn't present it as part of the discussion above. What you think you know of me you've read into my comments.

To correct your spurious assumptions:

As to your attempted slam #1, "I assume you have no concept of what morality is since you consider morality to comprise a part of the public school curriculum," of course I think government schools--let's call them what they are--are certainly imposing a morality in their students. It's an amoral, PC version of morality, but there is a morality being taught. Do you think otherwise? If you do, you probably need to look up what the word means. There is more than one definition, btw.

As to attempted slam #2, "Morality is not germane to public education!" of course not. Public education obviously has nothing to do with morality, in fact, because it's generally immoral to take from some to give to others, even on the assumption that the donors will indirectly benefit, as with schools. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor is still theft, whether it's Robin Hood or government doing it, and even if that government is doing it with the approval of the majority. But you probably meant to say that there is no morality in public education, which is just stupid. Of course there is, just as there is in academia. It's just not the moral code you'd prefer.

As to attempted slam #3," Libertarians are known to be morally devoid -you take the cake!!!" well, that's a two-parter.
First, Libertarians are known to be morally devoid to people like you, who prefer to assume that your moral code is the only one acceptable for all, and that if something is spiritually harmful under your moral code it should be banned. I'll accept that you THINK I'm morally devoid, but you probably also think women shouldn't expose their calves until they're married, either, so I won't consider that too important a critique.
Second, I'm not morally devoid at all. I believe in good and evil, just as you do. We probably differ on what those things are to some degree, but I am not an amoral person. I'm just not big on imposing the same moral code I have on the law, because I think people can reasonably disagree on things that aren't universal moral precepts.

However, I do need to note that your tone and your accusations are offensive flamebaiting without point, interjections into what was previously a pretty reasonable thread. Not a surprise, but did you really expect your comments to be more persuasive for it?

I reread it, and you are correct. I guess once I saw the way they phrased the letter, I knew I'd have suspected what was in the letter and read into it the 'sex' part. As the opinion notes, "The letter did not explicitly state that some questions involved sexual topics, although it did specify that the survey questions were about “early trauma (for example, violence)” and there was a warning that “answering questions may make [the] child feel uncomfortable.”"

To me, I see a school asking about 'early trauma,' I know they're asking about molestation. Schools are all over that now.

Well, if I was trying to raise Catholic children in the 9th Circuit, and if I had them in public schools, I'd be irate over this decision.

The Pontifical Counsel for the Family specifically assigns to parents the basic right and duty of sex education, in Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, in Sections 112-148.

A couple of excerpts:

It follows that any educative activity, related to education for love and carried out by persons outside the family, must be subject to the parents' acceptance of it and must be seen not as a substitute but as a support for their work. In fact, "Sex education, which is a basic right and duty of parents, must always be carried out under their attentive guidance whether at home or in educational centres chosen and controlled by them".

. . .

The rights of parents must be recognized, protected and maintained, not only to ensure solid formation of children and young people, but also to guarantee the right order of cooperation and collaboration between parents and those who can help them in their task.

------------------------------------

This decision ignores the basic rights of parents. It goes so far, in my opinion, to preclude the free exercise of religion by Catholics in public schools.

Comparing the letter to the actual questions (both set forth in footnotes to the opinion), it is obvious that the wool was being pulled over the eyes of parents specifically with regard to the sex questions. In fact, the District withdrew the questionairre over objections from parents, AFTER the damage was done.

Different people will read into that differently, one thing I believe was intended. Not too long ago, I had step-children at this age and received some of these "notices." Nearly all of them had the generic phrase about "uncomfortable" in them, since the consent letter specifically mentioned "violence."

It seems "legal disclaimers" as this are an everyday occurrence now and largely over-looked, since we read them all the time.

HOME SCHOOL!

As to attempted slam #2, "Morality is not germane to public education!" of course not. Public education obviously has nothing to do with morality, in fact, because it's generally immoral to take from some to give to others, even on the assumption that the donors will indirectly benefit, as with schools. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor is still theft, whether it's Robin Hood or government doing it, and even if that government is doing it with the approval of the majority. But you probably meant to say that there is no morality in public education, which is just stupid. Of course there is, just as there is in academia. It's just not the moral code you'd prefer.
Thank you for illustrating not only your lack of moral compass but your agreement that this ruling is good in that it imposes the morality you espouse by default as a morally devoid libertarian.

Your logic eludes you as much as it does me! LOL

I have always assumed the worst whenever I see a legal disclaimer that seems iffy to me. I'm almost never wrong there. My apologies if that part of my post was misleading. It wasn't intended to be.

How long are we putting up with these fools??