|
| PeterB wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
> "The right to family autonomy and privacy acknowledged in the common
> law has been recognized as so fundamental as to merit constitutional
> protection." Castagno v. Wholean 684 A.2d 1181, 1186 (Conn.1996)
Yet it does not point TO such protection. Wishing is not accomplishing.
Family autonomy is trumped by the right of the individual to protection
FROM that very family.
Each case is rather unique.
And from the case you cite, this proof that this very court did indeed
recognize that the child, and individual also had rights against failure
of the parents to protect:
"The petition must also contain specific, good faith allegations that
denial of the visitation will cause real and significant harm to the
child. [T]hat degree of harm requires more than a determination that
visitation would be in the child’s best interest. It must be a degree of
harm analogous to the kind of harm contemplated by §§ 46b-120 and
46b-129, namely, that the child is ‘‘neglected, uncared-for or
dependent.’’ The degree of specificity of the allegations must be
sufficient to justify requiring the fit parent to subject his or her
parental judgment to unwanted litigation. Only if these specific, good
faith allegations are made will a court have jurisdiction over the
petition. Roth v. Weston 789 A.2d 431, 450 (Conn.2002)"
This case was one of grandparents attempting to intervene in a family,
and THIS case showed that g'parents cannot do this unless conditions are
as stated above.
> "The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care,
> custody, and management of their child is protected by the Fourteenth
> Amendment." Santosky v. Kramer 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982)
Again I remind you that the child's rights can and do trump the parent's
rights if the parents fail to protect.
You have buried yourself by cherry picking, child...just as you always do.
Santosky v. Kramer consisted of an argument that again established that
while parents had rights of interest in the child, it did NOT trump the
child's right to be protected from the actions or inactions of the parent.
The case was clearly stated as being argued that the state lacked
sufficient EVIDENCE TO REMOVE, not that it could not remove if evidence
was sufficient.
The finding was that the state did in fact lack sufficient evidence.
It has long been established, and this quote of yours isn't news, that
parents have right of custody to their children.
The fundamental question in both cases cited, and in the case with
Abraham is whether or not he state has sufficient evidence to intervene
(or the relatives of the children can successfully petition the state
lacking evidence the child is subject to neglect or risk of harm).
> If a law "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly
> secured by the Constitution [it] is presumptively unconstitutional."
> Harris v. McRae 448 U.S. 297, 312 (1980)
Non Sequitur. It would only apply if the conditions defined in the first
cases cited were not met...that is the state lacked sufficient evidence
to intervene.
You have NOT provided proof that removal of a child with sufficient
evidence of neglect, abuse, or risk of harm, is unconstitutional.
>
> Proving that Markey knows how to post links, but has a problem
> understanding them.
Your failure to understand the cases you cite is clear evidence you do
not understand caselaw.
The question in the second case was whether or not the level of evidence
had met constitutional requirement. Not that the child could't be
removed or a state intervention executed if there were enough.
I can't speak for Mark, but I not only have no trouble understanding
citations of case law and findings, but I know a cherry picking
ethically challenged twit when I see one.
You were asked to prove your claim that it's unconstitutional to
interfere in parental rights. You have failed to do so.
It is long established that parents have rights. It is also long
established that the state can by law, including these very cases you
cite, intervene if there is sufficient evidence of risk of harm or
actual harm to a child.
The child's rights are explicit.
Now, move the goal posts.
0:->
>
>
> You're forgetting something, Markey. The state will not, in fact,
> force chemo on Abraham. Rather, it will detain Abraham against his
> will, preventing him from receiving the treatment of his choice. It's
> *your* burden to show how such restraint serves to either protect, or
> leave unfettered, individual rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
> Well?
>
> PeterB
>
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
|
|