Skip to comments.9th Circuit Declares Parenting Unconstitutional
Posted on 11/07/2005 9:00:26 AM PST by magisterium
On Nov. 2, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a stunning decision that parents do not have the right to determine when or what the public schools can teach their children about sexuality or moral behavior. When parents sued that not being allowed to determine whether or not such content was appropriate for their 6 year-olds violated their parental rights, they were told by the courts that "We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy rights to override the determination of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."
The 9th Circuit, always the laughingstock of the federal judiciary as it is, has really outdone itself this time. I bet that, if this decision holds up on appeal, the number of homeschoolers out there on the Left Coast will go off the chart.
Nevertheless, I'll "play the prophet" here and predict that those numbers will still be woefully insufficient to create a strong enough push from citizens to simply ignore these idiots and their kin in the rest of the judiciary. Most people are either too busy trying to stay afloat financially AND pay their taxes, or are too dumbed-down by 40 years'-worth of such decisions destroying the school system, that they will just let this kind of thing roll off their backs with no more reaction than a resigned sigh. I hope I'm wrong. But, if I'm right, and nothing much is "done" about this, then I think it's time to concede: "It's over."
You can read the decision for yourself at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E8695945B7C6F6B5882570AD0051320A/$file/0356499.pdf?openelement
Fricking Congress needs to do their constitutional duty and start impeaching these filthy judges.
I think this comment from the article pretty much sums it all up: "The 9th Circuit, always the laughingstock of the federal judiciary as it is, has really outdone itself this time."
I you don't want to read the whole thing, you can cut to the chase and scroll down to the bottom page of the "decision." It says it all. Yikes!
Mark for later reading and sharing with other parents...
In the words of Peter, Paul and Mary...
"When will they ever learn...? When will they evvver learn?"
Does this make it "STAR-REY DECISIS"?..........
Absolutely! We should start them in that direction ourselves. Everyone reading this ought to forward it to everyone they know. We FReepers can create instant awareness of this disgraceful act of judicial tyranny with an e-mail tree. When will we say "Enough!" and show that we MEAN it?
So what is the new title for a Parent? Am I now just a government donor? Do I get an hourly wage for babysitting the government's children?
The opinion is by Judge Reinhardt. Reinhardt is no friend of the Republic, that's for sure. He finds the second amendment to be a collective right in Sliveira v. Lockyer.
Here are Silveira case links, including legal briefs, and FR thread at the time the case was handed down. The SCOTUS denied certiori, so Silveira is the law of the land out in the 9th Circuit.
But back to the matter of asking children probing personal questions of a sexual nature ...
Meyer v. Nebraska. 262 US 390 (1923)
Pierce v. Society of Sisters. 268 US 510 (1925)
Fields v. Palmdale School Dist., -- F.3d- (9th Cir. 2005) <- The stinker
See also http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1861 <- Survey questions listed
Fields v. Palmdale Sch. Dist., 271 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (C.D. Cal. 2003) <- Case below Summary of 271 F. Supp. 2d 1217 follows ...
Parents sued school district, alleging violations of their federal and state constitutional rights to privacy, deprivation of their civil rights, and negligence. After obtaining written parental consent, the school mental health counselor distributed a sexually explicit survey to children. However, the parents were not aware of the subject matter, and claimed that, had they known the content of the survey, they would not have consented. held: For school district. Although parents have a constitutionally protected interest in education and rearing of their children, the court dismissed this case because the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect this specific circumstance.
How'd the 9th Circus get around this?:
Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA)
(known as the Hatch Amendment)
The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) (20 U.S.C. §1232h; 34 CFR Part 98) applies to programs that receive funding from the U.S. Department of Education (ED). PPRA is intended to protect the rights of parents and students in two ways:
It seeks to ensure that schools and contractors make instructional materials available for inspection by parents if those materials will be used in connection with an ED-funded survey, analysis, or evaluation in which their children participate; and
It seeks to ensure that schools and contractors obtain written parental consent before minor students are required to participate in any ED-funded survey, analysis, or evaluation that reveals information concerning:
1. Political affiliations;
2. Mental and psychological problems potentially embarrassing to the student and his/her family;
3. Sex behavior and attitudes;
4. Illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating and demeaning behavior;
5. Critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close family relationships;
6. Legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and ministers; or
7. Income (other than that required by law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving financial assistance under such program).
Parents or students who believe their rights under PPRA may have been violated may file a complaint with ED by writing the Family Policy Compliance Office. Complaints must contain specific allegations of fact giving reasonable cause to believe that a violation of PPRA occurred.
For additional information or technical assistance, you may call (202) 260-3887 (voice). Individuals who use TDD may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339. Or you may contact us at the following address:
Family Policy Compliance Office
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20202-4605
For more information:
....Consent before students are required to submit to a survey that concerns one or more of the following protected areas ("protected information survey") if the survey is funded in whole or in part by a program of the U.S. Department of Education (ED)-
1. Political affiliations or beliefs of the student or student's parent;
2. Mental or psychological problems of the student or student's family;
3. Sex behavior or attitudes;
4. Illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating, or demeaning behavior;
5. Critical appraisals of others with whom respondents have close family relationships;
6. Legally recognized privileged relationships, such as with lawyers, doctors, or ministers;
7. Religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student or parents; or
8. Income, other than as required by law to determine program eligibility.
Receive notice and an opportunity to opt a student out of -
1. Any other protected information survey, regardless of funding;
The following document presents a general explanation of the recent changes to FERPA and PPRA made by Congress. It also provides a general description of the two U.S. Supreme Court cases involving FERPA. The Department will issue guidance and/or regulations to provide the public with interpretations of these changes.
Yet another reason why I have never sent my boys to gubmint skool.
In Germany they've more or less accepted that they can't control what the kids are taught, and that home schooling is child abuse.
I agree with the outcome of this case. If every individual parent could decide exactly what his kids are to be taught in school, public schools would be even more ineffectual than they are now. However, I'm sure that if the parents had been objecting to the teaching of morals and patriotism in schools, the 9th Circus would have invented a right of parents to shield their kids from such "dangerous" lessons.
Peter Yarrow is overjoyed at this decision.
Children belong to the State, to be indoctrinated as the State, ACLU, Planned Barrenhood see fit.
The court ignored the fact that the consent form never mentioned anything about sex. The court gave the gubmint a free pass to deliberately deceive parents.
of the people, by the people, for the people
NOT in spite of the people.
You no longer have a Constitutional right to your property, money (taxes), or children. Why isn't everyone in this country revolting? We threw tea in the harbor over alot less.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.