Parents 'have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of

[Soldier4Christ]

Court: It does take a village when it comes to sexuality
Parents 'have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools'
Posted: November 3, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday against parents who sued their local school district after their elementary-age children were given a sexually charged survey, saying there is "no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children."

The three-judge panel of the full court further ruled that parents "have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."

Six parents sued the Palmdale, Calif., School District after finding out their kids had been asked a series of sexual questions in class. They included asking the children about the frequency of:

    Touching my private parts too much

    Thinking about having sex

    Thinking about touching other people's private parts

    Thinking about sex when I don't want to

    Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside

    Not trusting people because they might want sex

    Getting scared or upset when I think about sex

    Having sex feelings in my body

    Can't stop thinking about sex

    Getting upset when people talk about sex

Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote the opinion for the court [.pdf document]. Referring to the fact the parents lost their case at the district-court level, Reinhardt wrote:

    We agree [with the previous ruling], and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students. Finally, we hold that the defendants' actions were rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. [emphasis Reinhardt's].

Carrie Gordon Earll is director of issue analysis with Focus on the Family Action.

"Anyone who wonders why pro-family organizations like ours have been so concerned about activist courts only has to look at this case," Earll said in a statement. "The 9th Circuit did more than rule against parents who were upset that their elementary-school-aged children were being asked explicit questions about sex in class. They told all parents they have no right to protest what public schools tell their children."

Continued Earll: "What the court did here is declare parenthood unconstitutional. It's long been the liberal view that it takes a village to raise a child – but never before have the 'villagers' been elevated, as a matter of law, above mothers and fathers."

The controversy began in 2001 when a volunteer "mental health counselor" at Mesquite Elementary School set out to conduct a psychological assessment test of students in the first, third and fifth grades.

A letter to parents asked for their consent to conduct the study but did not indicate that questions of a sexual nature would be asked. The survey included 79 questions divided into four parts. Ten of those questions were of a sexual nature.

According to the court's opinion, the plaintiffs took action after their children participated in the survey and later told their parents about the sexual questions. Seeking damages and injunctive relief, the parents charged the district violated their federal constitutional right to privacy.

The lower court had ruled against the parents, saying the right "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs" does not rise to the level of a fundamental right protected by substantive due process.

Wrote Reinhardt: "As with all constitutional rights, the right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody and control of their children is not without limitations. In Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Court recognized that parents' liberty interest in the custody, care and nurture of their children resides 'first' in the parents, but does not reside there exclusively, nor is it 'beyond regulation [by the state] in the public interest.' For example, the state 'as parens patriae' may restrict parents' interest in the custody, care and nurture of their children 'by requiring school attendance, regulating or prohibiting the child's labor and in many other ways.'"

Reinhardt also cited previous cases that upheld the right of schools to educate children about issues of sexuality.


Mynote:  This has been the attitude of many public schools for many years. Now they have finally put this idea into words of their intent. It is past time for parents to stand up and take back their rights of what their children can and cannot be taught.

[nChrist]

Pastor Roger,

Brother, this should make every parent and grandparent in America sick and outraged. This should not and MUST not be allowed. The Ninth Circus (Circuit) Court has a lengthy record of stupid and Unconstitutional decisions, and they need to be made the laughing stock of the entire country. I have no doubt at all that this IGNORANT decision will be overturned just like many other IGNORANT and Unconstitutional decisions of the Ninth Circus (Circuit) Court.

Brother, the following is additional information on this case. Readers can go to the Christians Unite article and click numerous links for much more information.
_______________________________

Ninth U.S. Circuit's Trampling of Parental Rights Outrages Pro-Family Crowd

by Jenni Parker
November 4, 2005

(AgapePress) - - Pro-family leaders are disturbed and incensed over Wednesday's decision by an appellate court panel in San Francisco, which held that parents have "no fundamental right" to control their kids' upbringing by introducing them to sexual information "in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs." Nor, according to the panel, do mothers and fathers have the right to prevent their kids' exposure to sexual information whenever and however the school chooses. (See earlier story)

'The Circus Has Now Ruled ...'
The three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals informed six parents in California's Palmdale School District that they have "no fundamental right" to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sex to their children. It is a decision that the president and lead counsel of the pro-family firm Liberty Counsel describes as a declaration of war on parental rights.

[Photo compliments of Liberty Counsel]
Mat Staver   
A CitizenLink article yesterday (Nov. 3) quoted Staver as saying the Ninth Circuit ruling "essentially says that parents have no rights. Once you drop your kids off at school -- according to this court's decision -- you have severed all of your parental rights until you pick your kids up at the end of the day."

The plaintiffs in the case had sued the Palmdale School District for subjecting their children to a school survey without disclosing to the parents in advance that the survey contained probing personal questions of a sexual nature. However, the appellate court's Judge Stephen Reinhardt informed the plaintiffs in his ruling that "parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools ...."

A disgusted Staver commented, "Understand, these are seven-year-old children that are being asked intrusive and controversial and inappropriate questions about sexual behavior. And this judge says, 'That's okay.' Well, it's not okay!"

Nor was it okay, according to senior trial attorney Brian Fahling of the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, for the Ninth Circuit panel to ignore the school district's deception in failing to disclose to parents that the surveys would expose their children to such questions. And the attorney says that was not the only thing the court chose not to take into consideration.


Brian Fahling   
Fahling contends that the judge issuing the panel's opinion also failed to rely on law for the decision, citing instead a few cases that he attempted to make fit his predetermined conclusions. Under these circumstances, he says he finds the judges' ruling, as well as its implications, "deeply troubling," especially since it basically allows schools to expose children to whatever material they please while telling parents they cannot interfere.

Tony Perkins, president of the Washington, DC-based Family Research Council (FRC), calls the panel's ruling "infamous" and says it is hard to imagine any of those judges ever had young children. He notes that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is America's "most overruled circuit" and adds, "For off-the-wall liberalism, it has no peer."

'An Offensive Result That Must Be Overturned'
Appellate Judge Reinhardt himself has become known as one of the most overturned judges in history, and is the same jurist who ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional in a case brought by atheist activist Michael Newdow. Perkins is outraged but not surprised, as he puts it, to find the ultra-liberal judge playing "ringmaster to this out-of-control circus." This is a jurist who "thinks 'Under God' in the Pledge is unconstitutional, but sex surveys of seven-year-olds is not," the pro-family leader points out.

"The circus has now ruled that the Palmdale School District in California can ask first, third, and fifth graders intrusive questions," Perkins laments. Among the survey's questions were items querying the children about such things as touching their "private parts too much," not being able to stop "thinking about sex," and having "scared or upset" feelings when thinking about sex.

    [Photo compliments of Family Research Council]
Tony Perkins
However, when the parents who felt ambushed by the school district brought suit, Judge Reinhardt "brought down the gavel on them," the FRC president says. He calls the Ninth Circuit panel's decision "one more horrible example of what happens to parents' rights when liberal judicial activists are unchecked."

Perkins says in this ruling the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals showed "nothing but contempt," not only for parental rights but for "a child's right to be a child." The court's decision, he asserts, is an "outrageous and offensive result" that must be overturned.

Bruce Hausknecht, a judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, agrees that the ruling in the Palmdale parent's suit sets a terrible precedent. He says unless this "egregious example of judicial tyranny" is corrected, the rights of parents and the entire future of public education are in serious jeopardy.

http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion03578.shtml

Additional information on ChristiansUnite.com is available on the Internet at http://www.christiansunite.com/
Copyright © 2003 ChristiansUnite.com. All rights reserved.