Anti-Parent Bill Fails in California; Two Bad Bills Pass

[gardenswithkids]

Thing is, these types of laws aren’t going to affect good families. Parents who are involved, who are educated, who are good people, who work hard to ensure their children with a good life aren’t the kind of people who will deny their children necessary mental health care.

And the children of these types of parents will feel able to confide in them.

Nor will these types of parents be hurt by this law.

From what I read this is about teenagers, not young children. Teenagers I would say are mature enough to get mental health help.

The law proposed involved mental health care starting at age 12. Other laws say parents are legally responsible for our children and their actions until age 18. In order to do our job properly, parents need to know about serious matters. People with adult family members who have serious mental illness often having a difficult time trying to help them because privacy laws. Not every person who needs mental health care is mentally sound and able to think rationally–often they are not. A teen suffering from paranoia may mistrust his/her parents–loving, caring parents who deserve to know what is going on with their child. Beside paranoia, if the child/teen desiring mental health counseling is also involved with harmful activities with peers that the parents would disapprove of, it is entirely possible that they would not confide in their parents or their counselor. I can imagine all types of situations where good parents, their children and their extended family are precisely the kinds of people who would be hurt.

 

[whatevergirl]

Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply you said that.

But there is a conflict here, namely where do the rights of the parent end and the rights of the child begin?

You can say that since you financially support your children, you get to decide what they can and can’t do. Obviously there are limits here, since we would all agree that you can’t beat your children and otherwise abuse them.

It’s just a matter of where to draw the line. Should you be to forbid your teen to get mental health treatment or not? There was a case in the news where the parents, because of religious beliefs, were not going to allow their child to get life saving cancer treatment. There are cases where parents take their children out of the school system and teach them young earth creationism.

At what point can society intervene and say that parents’ authority doesn’t trump the rights of children?

Laws usually come about for reasons…possibly in some isolated cases where abuse was occuring, it might have been in that child’s best interest for the school to not involve the parents. But, once laws go into effect, they affect everyone…not just the select few that probably prompted the laws. That is more of the problem I have with it…my kid getting a mental health assessment without ME knowing, is wrong. But, I see your point a bit better now, thanks for clarifying. :tiphat:

 

[Patrick2340]

Originally Posted by flyingfish forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*Thing is, these types of laws aren’t going to affect good families. Parents who are involved, who are educated, who are good people, who work hard to ensure their children with a good life aren’t the kind of people who will deny their children necessary mental health care.

And the children of these types of parents will feel able to confide in them.

Nor will these types of parents be hurt by this law.

From what I read this is about teenagers, not young children. Teenagers I would say are mature enough to get mental health help.*

Sure, that’s an easy thing to say now. There is a thing call the law of unintended consequences. A law like this gets passed to address the situation of 1% of the population, and ultimately leads to affecting the other 99%.

What happens when the state decides that all children should have access to abortion in schools without parental notification? or contraception? or assisted suicide?

I have had the personal experience of a speech therapist telling me that our daughter was autistic. We had our daughter looked at by our doctor and her pediatrician who both told us the therapist was wrong. Our daughter has ADD, not autism. We moved out daughter into the Catholic school, where she was doing very well. The therapist called the school’s principal, and the next thing we knew the principal was suggestion she go back to the public school.

We homeschool now, and the therapist called my wife to verify that our daughter was being schooled. This has been a nightmare for us and our daughter. All because some therapists thinks she knows more than a doctor.

This legislation is a terrible idea. The slippery slope is steep, and the consequences for good parents are tangible.

 

[Corki]

Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply you said that.

But there is a conflict here, namely where do the rights of the parent end and the rights of the child begin?

According to this law, at age 12. Like I said, bad law with good intent. If you are trying to truly protect the child, setting an arbitrary age doesn’t fulfill the goal. Are a child’s rights less important at age 11 than at age 12?

This seems to be less about the balance between the rights of parent and child and more about the right of an outside entity (school, government agency or mental heath provider) to supercede the rights of the parents.

You can say that since you financially support your children, you get to decide what they can and can’t do. Obviously there are limits here, since we would all agree that you can’t beat your children and otherwise abuse them.

But this law wasn’t about parents who abuse or fail to protect their children. There was not a provision for any kind of test of reasonableness.

It’s just a matter of where to draw the line. Should you be to forbid your teen to get mental health treatment or not?

This law was not about anyone “forbidding” treatment. It was about not even informing parents about the treatment.

There was a case in the news where the parents, because of religious beliefs, were not going to allow their child to get life saving cancer treatment.

And there was a court process and a reasoned decision was reached. The case only went nuts when the mom ran off with the kid rather than abide by the court’s decision. In the law we are discussing here, there would be no reasoned decision process by a third party after hearing all the sides.

There are cases where parents take their children out of the school system and teach them young earth creationism.

I don’t have a problem with that.

At what point can society intervene and say that parents’ authority doesn’t trump the rights of children?

At the point when there is evidence to show that the parents have not met thier responsibilities to meet the child’s best interests. This law doesn’t give the parents a chance to make a good decision; it simply removes them from the decision making process.

******** breaking my own rule alert ***************

I usually hate it when every discussion in this forum somehow ends up as an abortion debate but…

Since Doe v. Bolton, abortion is legally considered a theraputic treatment for emotional and psychological effects of pregnancy. I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to see someone using this law, had it passed, to justify abortions without parental consent down to the age of 12. Just something to think about.

 

[buffalo]

They always sell these things as a means to protect the few. Who can argue?

It is insidious and governement has no place inserting itself into the family.

 

[shannyk]

They always sell these things as a means to protect the few. Who can argue?

…

Ah yes, in the same way abortion laws are to protect the few who are raped, or victims of crimes? It’s pretty evident how that has panned out…