The criminalization of parents

By Stephen Baskerville

The California appeals court decision criminalizing parents who homeschool their children is only the tip of an iceberg. Nationwide, parents are already being criminalized in huge numbers, and it is not limited to homeschoolers.

During the Clinton years, the trend toward turning children into tools for expanding government power increased rapidly. Otherwise indefensible programs and regulations are now rationalized as “for the children.”

As a result, government now has so many ways to incarcerate parents that hardly a family in America has not been touched. The criminalization of parents is highly bureaucratic, effected through a bureaucratic judiciary and supported by a vast “social services” machinery that few understand until it strikes them. They then find themselves against a faceless government behemoth from which they are powerless to protect their children or defend themselves.

Homeschoolers are usually accused of “educational neglect,” a form of child abuse. Like other child abuse accusations, it does not usually involve a formal charge, uniformed police, or a jury trial. Instead the accusations are leveled by social workers, whose subjective judgment is minimally restrained by due-process protections. As Susan Orr, head of the federal Children’s Bureau points out, these social workers are in effect plainclothes police – but they are not trained or restricted like regular police.

Homeschoolers are not alone. Any parents can be charged with “child abuse” on the flimsiest of pretexts, because child abuse has no definition. Because of our presumption of innocence, crimes are generally defined as they are adjudicated: A crime has been committed if a jury convicts. But the roughly 1 million cases of child abuse annually (out of 3 million accusations) are “confirmed” or “substantiated” not by jury trials but by social workers or (sometimes) judges. Most such parents are not imprisoned. They merely lose their children.

Virtually every American can now tell of a relative or friend visited by the feared Child Protective Services because of a playground injury or a routine bruise. Too many dismiss these frightening ordeals as aberrations. In fact, they proceed from a bureaucratic logic that is driven by federal funding. The more “abuse” the social workers find, the more money they get to combat it.

But serious as this is, it is still mild compared to the largest sector of semi-criminalized parents: the involuntarily divorced. The moment one parent files for divorce, even when no grounds are evinced, the government automatically and immediately seizes control of the children, who become effectively wards of the state. Astoundingly, they are then almost always placed in the “custody” of the parent that initiates the divorce, placing the divorcing parent and the state in collusion against the parent that is faithful to the marriage and family. The non-divorcing parent, even if legally unimpeachable, can then be arrested for unauthorized contact with his or her own children. Here too abuse accusations can be readily fabricated out of thin air, further criminalizing the innocent parent. He (it is usually, though not always, the father) can then be arrested, even without a shred of evidence that any abuse has occurred. He can also be arrested if he cannot pay child support that may consume most or even all his income. He can even be arrested for not paying a lawyer or psychotherapist he has not hired.

But what is most striking here – in contrast to homeschoolers – is the absence of opposition. The genius of the feminists is to vilify fathers in terms designed to incur the revulsion of decent people – “pedophiles,” “batterers,” “deadbeat dads” – and too many conservatives and Christians are fooled.

In fact, the social science data are clear that these alleged malefactors are rare among biological fathers and almost entirely the creation of feminist propaganda. Accused fathers are no more likely to be criminals or child abusers than are homeschooling parents. They have merely fallen into the clutches of another sector of the child exploitation bureaucracy.

Indeed, it is well-known among scholars that true child abuse takes place overwhelmingly in single parent homes – homes without fathers. By removing fathers under trumped-up abuse accusations, the child abuse apparatchiks create the environment for real abuse, further expanding their business.

Campaigns against homeschoolers and fathers are only the extreme manifestations of the larger attack on all parents. They indicate where we all may be headed if we do not take a united stand for parental rights against a judicial-bureaucratic machine that is not only destroying families but justifying its own expansion in the process.

Though conservatives often misuse the term, two features used by scholars to define totalitarian government were its highly bureaucratic methods and its willingness to invade and destroy the private sphere of life, particularly family life. Both these tendencies come together in the governmental leviathan that now administers our children: the education establishments, family courts, child protective services, child support enforcement agents, “human services” agencies, counseling services, domestic violence programs and much more.

The very idea that the criminal justice system has been diverted from its role of protecting society from dangerous criminals and instead used to threaten law-abiding parents with jail for educating or raising or simply being with their children should be seen by all Americans as a serious threat to our families and our freedom.

Comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

5 Comments

  1. wanito says:

    This is not related to this article, but it seems that, instead of some lawyers who read my original press release that I placed on this site some weeks back concerning the constitutionality of a female president, taking the opportunity to represent me in this legal action, they have designated the legally valid constitutional issue that I raised their own, and are filing their own legal actions based on such. I have attempted to find local attoryneys to represent me in this legal action, but to use a common term here in New Mexico, I couldn’t find any with the “cojones” or, to be non-discriminatory, the “ovaries” to take the case. Also, quite simply, I just don’t have the kind of money or connections needed to get this done. However, I am still looking for an attorney to file the federal action for me. The publicity this attorney would get would be worth a thousand attoryney fees.

    If you want an example of the other people running with my issue, take a look at http://www.opednews.com and look for the article concerning Hillary Clinton and the Constitution. There’s a Washington state attorney who is filing a federal legal action based on the issue I raised in my press release of Feb 5, 2008. From what the article says, others are attempting to do the same thing. Seems like the issue I raised has begun to take on a life of it’s own.

    John Alvarez

  2. greg says:

    The home school ruling is absurd. Kudos ot the governator who said plainly that he will write a law to allow home schooling. Sadly, he has not seen fit to perform the same public service by outlawing prejudice against Dads.

    Could it be that the feminist powerhouse jumped on the gov when home school affected women?

  3. Excellent article. I am sorry to say that the Clintons have been a huge problem for American rights and freedom, for example in the area of child support. I am not against child support and most sane people are not. Unconstitutional law in another thing altogether. The federal Bradley Amendment for child support was a pet project of the feminists and the Clinton Administration and one of their biggest victories. It has not been a victory for the American people…
    Unconstitutional Child Support Law Video

  4. Merck says:

    People who home school their children are usually good parents who are completely disgusted with the school system. An article in the Augusta Chronicle about this law prompted the following comment from one of its readers …

    —“25 Years ago, our child was seriously sick and needed to stay at home for a week to recover. I went to school and got her school work and brought it home. She did the entire weeks worth of school work in 2 1/2 hours. I asked her what the heck did she do with the rest of her time in school if it only took 2 1/2 hours to do the actual work. She replied, she was bored. We took her out of school and home schooled her. We traveled all over to include, Mexico, Japan, Canada and the USA. She home schooled from 5th grade to 10th grade without a ‘required’ curriculum. While we lived in Japan she mainstreamed with the Japanese. For 10th – 12th we enrolled her in an International Home School for the curriculum. She did 10th, 11th and 12th grade in 9 months. Graduated with honors, went to college, and now owns her own business. The freedom to travel, to live abroad, was wonderful. Home schooling is a personal choice of the parents and their lifestyle”.

    I don’t blame these parents for wanting to school their own children. I think it shows a level of commitment to your children that few parents possess.

    Ultimately, it really doesn’t matter what any of us thinks about the issue of schooling one’s own children. The government has “absolutely no right” to tell people they can’t home school their kids.

    It really doesn’t matter what any of us thinks about 50/50 custody after a divorce. The government has no right to deny either parent custody unless a crime has been committed against the child.

    It really doesn’t matter if you think a man has the responsibility to father a child he didn’t want. As long as a female has the right to abort the child, or give it up for adoption, or simply abandon the child, then the father has to be afforded equal protection.

    That’s the “law of the land” and it really doesn’t matter what any of us thinks about it. People in government need to obey the law and keep their noses out of the publics’ business or eventually we will all pay the price.

    Kevin Merck

  5. There might be few questions rising in your mind relating to machinery. The place I can purchase this equipment? The best way to get the most effective inexpensive prices? Find out how to verify the standard of the machinery? Sure, these questions are obvious and you will get the answers as properly in this article.

Leave a Reply