Find information and updates here about those cases and the issues where the parent-child relationship is being challenged by the infringement of the rights of parents and where ParentsUSA is providing legal services or working to shape public policies and laws. We are not able (yet) to accept all requests for help. With your help through your membership and.or donations, we can do more. Please join and.or donate.
PARENT OR CHILD? WHO SHOULD DECIDE FOR THE CHILD? NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, SHOULD A CHILD BE GIVEN THE POWER TO DECIDE AGAINST THE CHILD’S PARENTS? SOME STATES SAY “YES” AS IF GOVERNMENT CAN ONLY INTERFERE “A LITTLE!”
The National Association of Parents was consulted recently about our position when it comes to children being given the authority, the power, to make decisions for themselves going against the decisions of their parents. All states recognize that children lack the judgment to decide to consume alcohol (21), to buy cigarettes and other tobacco products (18), to get a tattoo (18), and to marry (18, with some states having exceptions). Try to rent a car under age 25, because insurance companies know that the judgment of a person under 25 is not yet as sound as the older person. Sure, there are exceptions. Sure, some parents are not wise and do not act always to do what is best for his or her child.
What is why, if necessary to prevent harm to a child, any act is necessary, then make it a requirement that the parent do so. Do NOT give a child the . power to override or veto the parent’s decision.
The problem that comes when teens (or children at any age) are given authority or power that allows them to act contrary to their parents’ directions is this: family discord. IF (and that is not the issue being addressed) a particular health care decision is deemed to be necessary to protect a child from harm, which IS the limit to the rights of parents per our US Supreme Court, then require the PARENTS to act. Do NOT give the power to a child and, thereby, disrupt the parent-child relationship. As our Executive Director stated:“If we’re going to empower a child of 12 or 14 or 16 to decide something this significant [as healthcare], why wouldn’t they say, ‘If I can make that decision then why can’t I also make any other decision that affects my life?’”
Kids are already wired to resist the rules and discipline parents impose. Be on guard, parents, as this slippery-slope of taking power from you continues. We push back. Join today and help us do so on your behalf!
*This is about the power struggle between children and their parents, not about the necessity of some or all vaccinations recommended or, in some instances, required.
PARENTSUSA FILES AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN THE US SUPREME COURT SEEKING REAFFIRMATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS!
On June 14, 2019, in the U. S. Supreme Court, the National Association of Parents and New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, as amici curiae (“friends of the court”), proudly filed their Brief in Support of Petitioner Frank G. in which the arguments and authorities presented to the SCOTUS were in defense of the rights of ALL parents! The Brief presented the position that the SCOTUS has “repeatedly held that ‘the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents[ ]'” and asks the SCOTUS to reaffirm such parental rights! If interested in reading the Amicus Brief, here is the link!
CHILD OUTDOORS ALONE. A PARENT ARRESTED! PARENTSUSA JUMPS IN AND THE CRIMINAL CHARGES ARE DISMISSED!
Sue Terrillion and her two children went to Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, and stayed in a rental property. After ordering food to-go from a nearby restaurant, she called the kids to go with her to pick up the food. They wanted to stay behind with the family dog, so she left to get the food. Her son let the dog out (the dog had to “go”) but didn’t use the leash. The boy went after the dog, a stranger saw them and contacted the police.
The police took the boy (and the dog) to the rental unit and interrogated the boy and girl, had dispatch call the mother, who came to the property. Sue was gone less than 45 minutes. She was charged with child endangerment! “Endangering the Welfare of a Child” under Delaware Law occurs when a person caring for a child “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of the child[.]” Title 11, Section 1102(a)(1(a)(emphasis added).
Did she hurt her children? No. Were her children likely to be hurt? No. Because we contend that a child is not likely to be injured (Delaware law) by the mere fact that a parent is not nearby, the National Association of Parents provided the legal defense for Sue and, as soon as we did so, the charges were dismissed!!
No CPS/DHS investigation took place (nor should it). But, in the news report, link below, notice the continuing efforts by the DOJ and the City for its police officers to accuse this mother of “negligent parenting” and to frame the officers only motivation being the welfare of the children (who were not hurt, in danger or in distress)!