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

[buffalo]

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

They apply their special specific issue to every child and that’s inappropriate.’

A measure that would have allowed kids as young as 12 to receive mental health treatment without the knowledge or consent of their parents failed in the California Assembly on Friday.
SB 543 went so far as to propose deleting a provision from current law that requires professionals working with a teen to contact a parent or guardian, calling such measures “inappropriate.”

more…

 

[pentecostbaby]

While I understand why people would be upset about the “anti-parent bill” … I came from a family with a long history of depression and mental illness. My parents made fun of my bipolar grandmother at the dinner table. I desperately needed therapy from age seven; I didn’t get it until I moved out at 18. Some parents are blind to their children’s problems, and wouldn’t let them get help even if they needed it. So while I understand the opposition, I think it’s misplaced.

 

[s4angel]

The thing about being a parent especialy a single parent is that it is a constant prayer that if you do drop the ball that it is not the wrong ball dropped. I admit and confess that at times I get exhausted, that I get busy and I miss things… But if someone notices a problem especialy a mental health problem with one of my children then I demand that I be told because maby there is something I can change to help my kid, maby I need to give added support, Also I am an adult and it is imparitive that I check out any and all doctors treating my child to see if they are safe doctors or quacks. My job as a parent is to protect my children and I do have a need to know if they are having serious issues I don’t know about. yes there are parents out there who don’t care or don’t believe in getting help but they are normaly a minority and it is considered neglect if you don’t get your children medical help they need so in truth there is no excuse for a law like this except to take away a parents right to know.

 

[buffalo]

It is one thing to have a teacher call you and discuss your child’s mental health, it is quite another to have that teacher send them for state counseling without your knowledge. Again, mother government knows better than parents.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

While I understand why people would be upset about the “anti-parent bill” … I came from a family with a long history of depression and mental illness. My parents made fun of my bipolar grandmother at the dinner table. I desperately needed therapy from age seven; I didn’t get it until I moved out at 18. Some parents are blind to their children’s problems, and wouldn’t let them get help even if they needed it. So while I understand the opposition, I think it’s misplaced.

I understand what you are saying but it is wrong to remove the rights of all parents because of a few bad ones.

I am sure that, if the case was bad enough, the State could go to court to get treatment for a child where the parents’ refuse to seek it out.

 

[whatevergirl]

*Hmmm…but my 16 yr old son needs a note from me to take a motrin if he gets a headache, if it’s on school property during school hours. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when reading things like this. *

 

[whatevergirl]

*You know, when people think of the slippery slope of abortion, this is what is meant. I think that our society, at least those who are trying to get this type of legislation passed, don’t like kids much. They want kids to make grown up decisions, but they are kids. Kids are sexualized in our society, treated as adults in many criminal court cases, and can walk into abortion clinics and get an abortion without a parent finding out. Is there a reason these legislators want our kids to be treated as adults, when they are not? Every action, has a motive. What is the motive behind all of this? *

 

[buffalo]

*You know, when people think of the slippery slope of abortion, this is what is meant. I think that our society, at least those who are trying to get this type of legislation passed, don’t like kids much. They want kids to make grown up decisions, but they are kids. Kids are sexualized in our society, treated as adults in many criminal court cases, and can walk into abortion clinics and get an abortion without a parent finding out. Is there a reason these legislators want our kids to be treated as adults, when they are not? Every action, has a motive. What is the motive behind all of this? *

The liberals want to homogenize America, strip it of traditions, religion and families. They believe this is the way to panacea, peace and harmony.

Here is how it is done - attack tradition, family and property. It is also the communist way.

 

[rpp]

When I see these types of things, it simply urges me on to move the Lake Country or Malheur County in Oregon. (Those counties have more square miles than people.) Sadly, I cannot pack up and move to another country because America is the last free place on Earth.

At least is was before November 7 of 2008.

 

[flyingfish]

The purpose of “anti-parent” bills is to help the children of abusive parents, not to cut out good parents from childrens’ lives.

If a teenager needs treatment for mental health issues because of abusive and otherwise destructive parents, it is in the interests of the teen to keep the parents out of it (who might decide not to give consent).

This type of legislation is about protecting the children from bad parents.

 

[Corki]

The purpose of “anti-parent” bills is to help the children of abusive parents, not to cut out good parents from childrens’ lives.

If a teenager needs treatment for mental health issues because of abusive and otherwise destructive parents, it is in the interests of the teen to keep the parents out of it (who might decide not to give consent).

This type of legislation is about protecting the children from bad parents.

Good intention; bad approach. A teenager who is facing the challenge of abusive or destructive parents needs intervention from child protective services or the appointment of a guardian ad litem to look out for his/her best interests. The interests of the child are not served by providing mental health treatment behind his/her parents’ back while allowing him/her to stay in an abusive environment.

 

[whatevergirl]

Good intention; bad approach. A teenager who is facing the challenge of abusive or destructive parents needs intervention from child protective services or the appointment of a guardian ad litem to look out for his/her best interests. The interests of the child are not served by providing mental health treatment behind his/her parents’ back while allowing him/her to stay in an abusive environment.

*I thought the same thing…doesn’t make sense. The children should be removed from the abusive family setting then… *

 

[Snerticus]

The purpose of “anti-parent” bills is to help the children of abusive parents, not to cut out good parents from childrens’ lives.

If a teenager needs treatment for mental health issues because of abusive and otherwise destructive parents, it is in the interests of the teen to keep the parents out of it (who might decide not to give consent).

This type of legislation is about protecting the children from bad parents.

This then must go on the premise that at least half or more of parents in this country are abusive, otherwise, why enact a law for only a few? And I highly doubt this is the case.

Also - who is going to pay for the child’s mental health care if the parents are left out of the loop?

Snert

 

[flyingfish]

*I thought the same thing…doesn’t make sense. The children should be removed from the abusive family setting then… *

Not all bad families are bad enough to justify removing children.

As another poster mentioned earlier, some families might have a lot of prejudice and beliefs about mental illness and not want their children to get treated even if they need it.

Sometimes there is tension in families that is just not severe enough for children to be placed in foster care, but still leave them unable to tell the parents that they need help, or it’s best if parents don’t interfere.

Children are the vulnerable ones, their needs need to come ahead of their parents desires to be in control.

Children aren’t their parents’ property, they are human beings with rights.

 

[whatevergirl]

*Please don’t put words in my mouth…I never said that kids are the property of their parents.
*

 

[flyingfish]

*Please don’t put words in my mouth…I never said that kids are the property of their parents.
*

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?

 

[gardenswithkids]

Not all bad families are bad enough to justify removing children.

As another poster mentioned earlier, some families might have a lot of prejudice and beliefs about mental illness and not want their children to get treated even if they need it…
…Children aren’t their parents’ property, they are human beings with rights.

But are all families bad enough to justify proposing laws like the one defeated?? Of course children are human beings with rights–and so are parents. Bad laws presume all parents to be bad parents and allow* all* children be treated without parental knowledge or consent. Parents should be presumed “innocent” of poor parenting until proven “guilty”.

This bill seemed to presume parents as the “bad guys”. More often than not, parents care for their children and care about their children’s health–both mental and physical. Parents are usually knowledgable of their children’s allergies, medical history, etc. that mental health professionals treating patients should probably know. The school records may not have all the neccesary information, and a minor with mental health problems might not know or report their own medical/mental health history accurately either. This defeated bill wasn’t only bad for parents–it was bad for their minor children.

 

[flyingfish]

But are all families bad enough to justify proposing laws like the one defeated?? Of course children are human beings with rights–and so are parents. Bad laws presume all parents to be bad parents and allow* all* children be treated without parental knowledge or consent. Parents should be presumed “innocent” of poor parenting until proven “guilty”.

This bill seemed to presume parents as the “bad guys”. More often than not, parents care for their children and care about their children’s health–both mental and physical. Parents are usually knowledgable of their children’s allergies, medical history, etc. that mental health professionals treating patients should probably know. The school records may not have all the neccesary information, and a minor with mental health problems might not know or report their own medical/mental health history accurately either. This defeated bill wasn’t only bad for parents–it was bad for their minor children.

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.

 

[pentecostbaby]

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.

Exactly. This law isn’t about the 99.9% of parents who are able to see to their children’s mental and physical well being. This is about parents, who, perhaps, have had the school call them multiple times about their child’s issue and nothing has been done.

I’m not talking about ADD either - I’m talking about depression, anxiety, anorexia, etc. My parents thought the proper way to respond to mental health issues was screaming at me to shape up. It wasn’t enough to warrant me being removed from their home (I’m a certified foster parent, so I can answer that with certainty). However, it was enough to affect my life, my well-being, and my ability to function. I need medication in order to remain on an even keel. I don’t say this to inject my own life into this debate, but to show that there is another side to this story other than the evil liberals trying to take your kids (the government doesn’t want to raise your kids. I promise, as a foster parent, that it has NO INTEREST in it).

 

[rpp]

Exactly. This law isn’t about the 99.9% of parents who are able to see to their children’s mental and physical well being.

{snip}

You may be correct in this assessment, however, it affect 100% of parents. It is, in all manner, utterly wrong. Who makes the determination about what kind of mental helth counseling a child will receive? Who determines who the practitioner is? Who pays for this?

No, this is altogether evil.