Parental Rights vs. Individual Rights

Let's see if we can discuss this in a non flamey way.

Although I've been angered by it for years, I just finished reading, "Help at Any Cost," about the abuse in so-called juvenile behavior modification programs, boot camps, and "wilderness" camps. Speficilal;y about how the kids at certain of them are emotionally, mentally, and physically abused... and many are sent there for no real reason: wearing black, getting drunk one time, etc. Quite a few of these are now outside of the US, because they can get away with more. I will also include "ex gay" juvenile facilities in this.

So, why can an American citizen be kidnapped by strangers from their home and imprisoned without ANY medical or legal authority signing off on their incarceration? And have no recourse to leave these facilities, even if abused? Why can American citizens be kidnapped and transported by strangers to another country and abused and denied Embassy contact? Why can American citizens be forced into a behavior modification program against their will, for no reason, including kids who are gay? Why is this allowed, just because the American citizens in question just happen to be under 18 years of age? Why? Because American courts say it's okay.

Your thoughts on an individual's rights being superseded by their parents' rights as parents.


My opinion: An individual's rights is more important than their parents. ESPECIALLY when there has been NO third party legal incarceration of the juvenile (courts, doctors, etc.). We make parents let their kids have blood transfusions, etc. This is no "slippery slope," imo. But rather protection of a human being.

On edit: The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has done exhaustive research on the ineffectiveness of certain programs. Just an FYI if anyone wants to take a look at their site.

and stop abdicating responsibility to a third party? Talk to your kids and find out what is going on...start EARLY and many if not most of this crap can be avoided and if THEY do some things that appear a little 'strange' to you, you will have an avenue in which to discuss it rather than ship them off to 'wonderland.'

That said, there may be a time for some sort of intervention, but this doesn't seem to be the way to do anything more than 'scare' the child into behaviour. Don't count on your kid EVER trusting you again if you pull something like this...

sP

And guardianship will always win because the guardians are responsible for ensuring the safety of the child. With these boot camps the parents assign guardianship to the camp so they are able to take the child against the child's will. I disagree with using a boot camps for bad kids, the parents that use these are most likely the worst parents in the world and thats why their kids are so fucked up but just because I disagree with them does not mean I want to give my 4 year old individual rights on whether she is going to eat her broccoli or not.

Not about not having to eat your veggies.

That is covered by state and federal laws, there is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about kidnapping or being held against your will by a someone else. The Constitution was a document drafted defining the roll of Government and what they are and are not able to do, it was not drafted to list what your individual rights are.

If your spouse paid someone to kidnap you out of bed in the middle of the night, transport you to someplace in the South pacific, keep you there for as long as they wanted to, didn't allow you access to a phone, letters, Embassy staff, visitors... even a newspaper, did abusive things to you emotionally, physically, and mentally, and refused to ever let you leave, unless you did exactly what they told you to do, would that be legal? Of course not. Change the age of the person from 18 to 17 and the answer is yes, it would be legal.

And, it has been found by Courts that doing any of the above to a minor IS against Conditional rights... if it's a public agency doing it. Private facilities are above the law in many places. It's very sad for these children.

So she can't have me kidnapped, but if I was a vegetable she could remove me from life support or deny me food and when I die she would not be charged with murder because as my guardian she gets to make decision about my healthcare. Again your state has defined what a legal guardian is able to do, it has nothing to do with individual rights.

Why does "guardianship" rights supersede an individual's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? And is this fair?

That's the question I asked in the OP.

We have decided as a population to legally allow others to make decisions in our place if we are not capable of making those decisions ourselves or if we are juveniles. Now you could ask your state legislatures to draw up an amendment to it's guardianship law that states juveniles should be treated as adults but then good luck getting it passed since it would totally remove anyway for a parent to discipline or control their child.

And yes, that is what you say in your reply.

I honestly don't see how disallowing certain practices is taking away a parent's right to CONTROL (your word) their children, any more than making them let their kid have a blood transfusion. They both revolve around the life and well being of a child, eh?

I'm glad laws have changed re: how husbands can treat their wives.

as long as it does not break the law. I have kids, I am responsible for their health, safety and well being. That means I have to make decisions for them because at this point they are not capable of making a rational decision. As a society we have all agreed that children require guardians, that these guardians are responsible for those children until they reach the legal age of making decisions for themselves.

If you don't like the law change it, I can't fathom why this is such a big deal. I mean do you think kids should be able to drive, vote, smoke or drink?

If YOU did that stuff to your kids, YOU would be imprisoned and your children taken away.

And, just because it isn't against the law to do certain things to your kid does NOT make it right. Ugh. Slavery was legal, until very recently women were legally second-class citizens in their marriage, blacks were disenfranchised from voting, interracial marriage was wrong, etc.

I am gobsmacked that you are actually asking why this is a big deal. Why allowing juveniles to be treated like chattel shouldn't be allowed. Abusing kids in ANY way is immorally, even if you think it's fair, legal, and parents have a right to control and discipline children anyway they want. I'm sorry that my thinking that children have the same basic civil rights as adults confounds you.

Jeebus. This is DU and it is 2007, right?

And, please tell me where I said kids should be allowed to drink, smoke, or vote? I believe I said that they shouldn't be allowed to be abused in the name of parental rights.

My dialogue with you about this has ended: your stance that you're allowed to do anything to your kids because the law says so is not a reasonable or rational stance.

There is no law that says a parent or guardian can legally abuse their child, so stop trying to hide your argument behind kids are being abused. If what happens in these programs is ILLEGAL then they are breaking the fucking law and should be held accountable. Again if you don't like the law stop bitching and change it, I fail to see why you are having such a hard time grasping this.

as their prime motivation and this is true in most cases. However, desperate parents with kids who are acting out and who have sought legal help and been rebuffed have little recourse. Sometimes the child can be a danger to other children in the house, as well as to the parents, themselves. Apparently you have no idea how bad it can get.

Unfortunately, there are few alternatives other than abuse centers (AKA boot camps) that teach the kids who survive them that their parents aren't the biggest monsters in the world, if nothing else. The only other alternative is encouraging the underage and acting out child to leave the home and head for the streets.

We have piss poor mental health care in this country and virtually no help for families with children who have assaulted other family members but not yet raped or killed any of them.

This is the problem, not the fact that parents are empowered to act in their children's interest.

And yes, I do know how bad it can get. And, IN NO CASE should it ever be allowed to emotionally, mentally, and physically abuse children. I'm surprised you said that.

You haven't answered the question, though: why do parental rights trump Constitutional rights when juveniles are being incarcerated and abused in PRIVATE facilities against their will? Why are parents allowed to force a teenager into an "ex gay" program? An adult cannot be treated in a brainwashing program against their will.

I warrant the real mental health professionals on here agree with me. Actually, I know one of them does.

What part of "abuse center" didn't you GET?

What part of "acting in the best interest of the minor child" didn't you GET?

Your questions were answered. You just didn't like the answers.

I've heard of an awful lot of stories of kids who got sent to these camps because they were basically acted like normal teenagers.

I've certainly met lots of parents who completely freak out when their little angel turns 14 or 15 and uses a few swear words or gets caught masturbating (the horror!--yes, many parents still think that) or gets an eyebrow pierced or something.

I had one student who was a decent, well-behaved college student whose father almost sent her to one of those gulags--it sounded as if they were having the usual teen-parent arguments over curfew, friends, etc, but daddy had a cow because she wasn't his widdo baby girl any more, so he wanted to send her off to get "fixed" so she'd be just like she was at 5.

Seriously. They had read that it meant she was a drug addict and a slut. The kid was in there for two years and only left when she turned 18. Luckily, my sister and BIL remember what a little punks they were, and my niece and nephew are safe.

and decent mental health care, families could get that reality check.

Unfortunately, all they have now is the abuse center.

It's not like this country cares about any of its people, you know.

How do you feel about abortion?

BUT, children are minors and I believe parents have the legal right to make decisions for them. So they don't always have "individual rights" as adults would have.

who would have been ripe for these 'camps', is that by the time a kid's parents decide to send them away to be 'rehabilitated', the parental-child bond is broken, almost irretrievably so. A parent is charged at the most basic level with protecting their child and IMHO, these camps are abusive.

As a therapist, I have always maintained that when treating any family member, whether it is a wife or husband with issues, or a child who is having an issue with parents, it is imperative to treat the entire family to get all sides of the story.

I remember in particular one family with an extremely disturbed young son and his portrait of his mother was horrific. That she was a drunk, a complete whore, neglectful, the whole nine yards. Mom had her therapist convinced that her kids were ungrateful brats and that she was the best mother ever.

The kids were right. She was a horribly neglectful parent, but HER therapist had her convinced that she was an absolutely wonderful parent.

Parents do not have the right to use their maniacal religious beliefs to harm their children.

In much the same way that the "American Dream" is the reason that people are willing to let the rich get away with not paying their taxes (cause we think somehow it will be us.)

I recently saw a post here that claimed that there was a dangerous amount of physical abuse in at leasts 1/4 households. Couple this with the fact that 1/5 girls will be molested (probably by a very close family member) and you start to think "How many people are getting punish for this myth?"

We still have kids die each year because their parent refuse to seek medical treatment. I'm not saying parents shouldn't have rights, but too much power is always a bad thing.