California Bill of Rights for Children Would Give The State New Powers Over Your Kids

We already have a Bill of Rights and it applies to everyone, this should be thrown out.....its already gotten bad enough, people keep pushing the envelope with peoples kids, and try to enforce it and things are going to get ugly really fast

originally posted by: MiddleInitial
a reply to: ketsuko

I'm playing devil's advocate. If it is Clinton's opinion that it "takes a village to raise a child", how can you be certain that's wrong, aside from partisan rancor?

Imagine the chaos if every single adult your child was ever entrusted to in any way, shape or form had equal authority to you as parent.

Good lord! We've been having the go around with my kid's teacher this year. I'm not going to go into the particulars, but long story short, it boils down to me knowing my kid better than she does. So in the end, where she starting suspect things like autism or ADHD, I was back on avoidance issues.

If this passes, the parents of children living in Oakland and other high-crime cities should sue the state for failing to provide a safe environment to the children.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I agree big man, but in a socialist utopia, kids have to be included.

Considering how some parents in Nature defend their offspring, nothing good can come out of separating a mother and father from doing what they think is best for their child. Our ability to reason creates an infinite set of variables that we use to raise our children, but when it's being narrowed down to a subset of guidelines that must be adhered to, the concept is lost and individuality is marginalized.

We are becoming lemmings of the State.

a reply to: eisegesis

It's just the natural outgrowth of the elitist idea that everyone else is too stupid to know how to do what is in their own best interests.

The socialist state wants to really dissolve all ties beyond that all powerful one to the state anyhow. So this is part and parcel of that. Destroy the faith community, the family, the neighborhood ... all you have left is the state.

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I agree big man, but in a socialist utopia, kids have to be included.

Considering how some parents in Nature defend their offspring, nothing good can come out of separating a mother and father from doing what they think is best for their child. Our ability to reason creates an infinite set of variables that we use to raise our children, but when it's being narrowed down to a subset of guidelines that must be adhered to, the concept is lost and individuality is marginalized.

We are becoming lemmings of the State.

Couldnt agree more, its really sad to see this "progression" happen. But Im guessing what you described is exactly the endgame they are looking for

a reply to: ketsuko

As stay-home father to a 4-year old, I share your concern, especially when it's framed as an issue of all (or even some) adults having equal parental discretion and authority.

Yet, when I reflect on my upbringing, I recognize that my parents shared the responsibility of raising me with other family members, leaders in cub & boy scouts, adults in churches and schools, etc. For better and worse.

I think the central issue is this: it's not that it doesn't "take a village" (community), it's that parents (unless wealthy) are afforded fewer and fewer substantial opportunities to shape that village, through direct and indirect interventions.

I thought child protective services could already take children from a home with out a court appearance?

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
And let me guess, if the State decides any of that long list isn't being met they can take the kids away?

What's the point of this otherwise?

This is basic Human Rights stuff, by the way, it just goes without saying, so again, whats the point of this otherwise, folks?

So what does the state do with your kids when it takes them ... redistribute them to more deserving parents who then milk the system for the foster money?

I've seen stories on how the CPS Gestappo works in Cali. They'll determine you are endangering your child if you deign to seek a second opinion from another doctor.

Sorry for singling you out here, but your content strikes a nerve here.

My wife and I happen to be one of those "parents" who are taking care of a child born to others. His birth parents happen to have long "rap sheets" for various felonies not the least of which are theft of person and identity and such.

The child is now 11 and has lived with us since he was 5, though from 2001 to 2013 his father lived with us too... long story I won't discuss. So, CPS took him from dad, who took him from mom, and CPS placed him here, with family. Mind you, he has a dozen other relatives; none of those would take him in, we learned after the fact, but that is fine. We do receive assistance for taking care of him... and if either of his birth parents get a job, proper, you bet Cali will be attaching wages.

Cali has given us no qualms regarding seeking or switching doctors for whatever reason my wife and I have had, even considering difference of opinions between the doctors and us. The child, as of now, is a ward of the State so we do have rules to follow but they're not as strict as some would have you believe... as long as the child gets to school and people do not complain about things, the State is not breathing down peoples' backs.

This "children's rights" thing is mostly common sense. Children who have been abused have always had the right to complain to the police and such; nothing really mandated any action be taken in any but the most egregious situations.

a reply to: eisegesis

As the veil of socialism slowly descends upon us, one State (California), will soon be responsible for creating guidelines and enforcing what they consider to be acceptable parenting practices.

This is not new.

Being a decent parent has been a thing for over a century. Yes, the government can come and take away your kid if they are being abused, neglected, exploited, etc. or live in a meth-house, or squalor, or couch-surfing.

Be a decent parent. If you need help knowing what that means, then ask for help.

a reply to: paradoxious

The problem is that CPS seems to pull the trigger on responsible parents as much or more than they do on the irresponsible ones. There are far too many cases of children whose parents seem to have been extended every benefit of the doubt by the system and they end up dead or horribly abused as compared to instances where CPS crawls right into the back pockets of parents who did nothing at all wrong except let their kid outside to play and a concerned neighbor reported them for it or other, similar silliness.

the concept is lost and individuality is marginalized.

"The advantage sought is, of course, to minimize private possessive emotions, and so remove obstacles to the domination of public spirit, as well as to acquiescence in the absence of private property."

Bertrand Russell on Plato's Utopia (from "The History of Western Philosophy"), wherein no child knows the identity of its mother or father and vise-versa. It's worth noting that Plato's Utopia was largely inspired by and modeled after Sparta, which created no art or science in their high times.

This kind of broad law would allow the state to arrest a parent for just about any reason. Certainly they would at least use it to intimidate citizens into forcefeeding their kids whatever the state agenda is.

Liberals scream about Trump while working to enact their own totalitarianism. Its mind boggling. Not that conservatives havent done the same thing before. Yell about the left infringing on freedoms while taking others away.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Hillary would be all for it. You know she thinks it takes a village to raise a child.

That's because it does. Seeing functional adults working, learning from teachers, meeting others in town to be friends with.

A lot of people are involved with the process.

originally posted by: MiddleInitial
a reply to: ketsuko

I'm playing devil's advocate. If it is Clinton's opinion that it "takes a village to raise a child", how can you be certain that's wrong, aside from partisan rancor?

That's easy.

The village screwed me up. I don't allow the village to raise my kids. My kids are brilliant and socially sound.

I'm brilliant, but my social skills are like a Borg drone in the middle of a Christmas party.

I'm evidence this bill is developed by spoiled brats.

And it matters to me because this Union tends to take the word of other States as precedent.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

We probably have much in common.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Doesn't the concept of states rights encourage this sort of stuff?

a reply to: Aazadan

When do state rights supersede individual rights?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aazadan

When do state rights supersede individual rights?

Since when did most state constitutions grant any individual rights?

a reply to: Aazadan

So federally recognized individual rights are trumped by states that don't recognize individual rights.