| Jan Drew 2006-08-01, 4:40 pm |
| *Again I remind you that the child's rights can and do trump the parent's
rights if the parents fail to protect.*
Determined by whom?
"0:->" <pohaku.kane@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:reudnd2X0NaY6lLZnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@scnresearch.com...
> PeterB wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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).
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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:->
>
>
>
>
> --
> "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)
|