IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
— John Hancock
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Adoption is legalized child trafficking
Adoption is legalized child trafficking
Tue, 2009-12-22 15:36 - Niels
Iris Pronk/Trouw
December 22, 2009
Translated from original Dutch article
Adoption is legalized child trafficking, say Roelie Post and Arun Dohle. Together they founded Against Child Trafficking. If it is up to them, inter-country adoption disappears in five years time.
On the wall of their office in Brussels is a large world map with green, red and blue dots. Green for the 'open' adoption countries, red for the countries that closed the doors. And blue ones representing the regions which Roelie Post (49) and Arun Dohle (36) have so far examined: Malawi, Ethiopia, China, Peru and India.
Their goal is a "red world": five years from now inter-country adoptions should have been stopped. According to them, it is "legalized trade of children”, where vulnerable children are exchanged for large sums of money. Their description of adoption has, John Le Carré-like features: stolen babies, unscrupulous traders, cheating orphanage directors and forged adoption procedures. This is, as they say, the rule.
To make this "commerce" visible and to frustrate it, Post and Dohle, together founded Against Child Trafficking (ACT). In their office, located in Post's basement, the two make long days: "And often the phone rings here at three at night”.
The researchers collected information about bad or dubious adoption cases, partially through the Internet. Their database is growing day by day: "We talk to adoptive parents, adoptees, lawyers and professors from around the world." When they stumble upon a case of kidnapped children or other doubtful cases, they inform the adoption agencies and ministries.
That hasn't made them popular in the inner circles of adoption. Bertie Treur, Director of Stichting Kind en Toekomst, heaves a sigh at the sound of the names 'Post' and 'Dohle'. "We are very committed to ethical adoptions, "she says. "These people are looking for evil. I think it troubling that they assume that adoption agencies act randomly."
In turn, Post and Dohle hold little regard of the agencies, which cooperate in a system they have experienced as sick and corrupt. They see most governments in a negative light too, because time and again, they succumb to the powerful lobby of (prospective) adoptive parents. Their desire to have children is leading, say the two, not the interests of the child.
Against those powerful forces, they conduct their guerrilla fight. Post devotes her time to policy and children's rights, while Dohle is the researcher in the field. With a suitcase full of dossiers, he regularly gets on a plain, for example to Ethiopia or India to check the background of adoptees. It is not like the "Spoorloos Method”, says Post. "That TV program brings biological and adoptive parents children back together and that's that. While we think justice must prevail."
Dohle was closely involved in some of the recent high-profile adoption incidents. He worked on the Netwerk broadcast on 'Rahul', the boy who was stolen from his Indian parents at eighteen month, and who is possibly adoption by a Dutch family. Dohle brought the biological parents in contact with a lawyer, whom has for years requested the Dutch adoptive parents for a DNA test, so far unsuccessfully.
Dohle and Post, in collaboration with a local human rights organization, also managed to thwart Madonna. The Court of Malawi first refused her adoption of Chifundo 'Mercy' James, because she is not a resident of Malawi, as the law demands. The Judge based his decision on knowledge provided by Dohle, he says. In second instance the U.S. megastar could eventually got the girl. Post laments: "That´s how adoption works. It's all about money, money, money."
Then there was the recent revelation of adoption agency Wereldkinderen that Ethiopian 'orphans', adopted by Dutch parents, appear to have Ethiopian parents that are very much alive. The agency based its conclusions upon a study done by ACT. As a result Wereldkinderen temporarily stopped adoptions from Ethiopia.
Dohle and Post's indignation is great, their position clear: Inter-country adoption is not a "last resort" for children in the need, but a lucrative market that serves involuntarily childless couples. Adoption has little to do with 'child protection', they say. Those really wanting to help, should invest in a local child protection, and provide care to poor parents, to prevent relinquishment of children.
Recent cases of child trafficking for adoption are not incidents, the two claim. But can they prove that?
Yes, say Post and Dohle: they have so far investigated over one hundred adoption cases and found irregularities in all of them, ranging form abduction of children to wrong files, based on which local judges approved an adoption. "It is a crime to dis-inform the court."
And sometimes the paper work is correct, but mothers didn't know what they signed for. Dohle: "They do not understand what it means to waive their parental rights. They think they can take their child back in their arms, when it reaches age 18"
But: over one hundred acts of wrong-doing, does not show that the approximately 36,000 inter-country adoptions per year are not done well. They do not provide evidence of large-scale corruption and crime. Post sighs deeply at this conclusion: "How much more evidence do you need?" She calls it turning the world upside down: "The adoption agencies should provide evidence that their adoptions are ethical. But that they can and will not do. These agencies stay inactive, they don't investigate anything. Their records are often so vague, you wouldn't buy a second hand car based upon them."
But a messy file does not yet indicate child trafficking or unethical adoption? Post: "The biggest problem is that parents who consider relinquishing their child, for example because they have no money for food, usually don't receive any alternative help. No coaching, no loan, no other recourse but relinquishment and adoption. Adoption Agencies have all sorts of aid projects, but those are intended for other families, not for parents that potentially relinquish. "
Doesn't the evil Dohle and Post are convinced of, not color their perception? "If only that were true," says Post. "We are not against adoption, but against child trafficking. Unfortunately those two can not be distinguished from one another."
Who are the adoption fighters?
Roelie Post acquired her knowledge about adoption in Romania, where she worked on behalf of the European Commission, for many years. She saw crowded orphanages and aggressive foreign adoption agencies running their "Legalized child trafficking". "The supply was made to match the high demand," Post says. In her book "Romania. For export only. The untold story of the Romanian orphans' (2007) she reports about her experiences.
Together with the Romanian authorities, the European Commission, closed the major children's homes and established a system of child protection, that takes care of Romanian children in their own country. But an active lobby kept pressing for the 'export' of Romanian children, which Post strongly opposes.
That lobby made her work for the European Commission impossible Post said. She was finally seconded to Against Child Trafficking (ACT), an organization she founded herself. "I've seen children get sucked into the system, instead of helping them," she says. "I must share my knowledge about adoption, that is my social responsibility. Nobody else comes up for these children."
Post found a supporter: Arun Dohle, an Indian who was adopted by German parents. Dohle has been doing research into his own roots from India, for years. He suspects that he is an illegitimate child of a member of the famous Pawar family. Before the court of Bombay, Dohle demanded the identity of his mother to be revealed, but the case so far is hindered by "the power of the family". His quest became a true Indian media hype. "Son of Pawar wants to know who his mother is," the newspapers headlined.
"I discovered my adoption is complete shit, the paperwork is nothing but a bunch of lies," says Dohle. "Nowhere in my file is a waiver of parental rights, signed by my mother. I think they took me away from her under duress." Dohle also examined some hundred adoption files from other adoptees, which according to him, all contain irregularities.
http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/41521
Tue, 2009-12-22 15:36 - Niels
Iris Pronk/Trouw
December 22, 2009
Translated from original Dutch article
Adoption is legalized child trafficking, say Roelie Post and Arun Dohle. Together they founded Against Child Trafficking. If it is up to them, inter-country adoption disappears in five years time.
On the wall of their office in Brussels is a large world map with green, red and blue dots. Green for the 'open' adoption countries, red for the countries that closed the doors. And blue ones representing the regions which Roelie Post (49) and Arun Dohle (36) have so far examined: Malawi, Ethiopia, China, Peru and India.
Their goal is a "red world": five years from now inter-country adoptions should have been stopped. According to them, it is "legalized trade of children”, where vulnerable children are exchanged for large sums of money. Their description of adoption has, John Le Carré-like features: stolen babies, unscrupulous traders, cheating orphanage directors and forged adoption procedures. This is, as they say, the rule.
To make this "commerce" visible and to frustrate it, Post and Dohle, together founded Against Child Trafficking (ACT). In their office, located in Post's basement, the two make long days: "And often the phone rings here at three at night”.
The researchers collected information about bad or dubious adoption cases, partially through the Internet. Their database is growing day by day: "We talk to adoptive parents, adoptees, lawyers and professors from around the world." When they stumble upon a case of kidnapped children or other doubtful cases, they inform the adoption agencies and ministries.
That hasn't made them popular in the inner circles of adoption. Bertie Treur, Director of Stichting Kind en Toekomst, heaves a sigh at the sound of the names 'Post' and 'Dohle'. "We are very committed to ethical adoptions, "she says. "These people are looking for evil. I think it troubling that they assume that adoption agencies act randomly."
In turn, Post and Dohle hold little regard of the agencies, which cooperate in a system they have experienced as sick and corrupt. They see most governments in a negative light too, because time and again, they succumb to the powerful lobby of (prospective) adoptive parents. Their desire to have children is leading, say the two, not the interests of the child.
Against those powerful forces, they conduct their guerrilla fight. Post devotes her time to policy and children's rights, while Dohle is the researcher in the field. With a suitcase full of dossiers, he regularly gets on a plain, for example to Ethiopia or India to check the background of adoptees. It is not like the "Spoorloos Method”, says Post. "That TV program brings biological and adoptive parents children back together and that's that. While we think justice must prevail."
Dohle was closely involved in some of the recent high-profile adoption incidents. He worked on the Netwerk broadcast on 'Rahul', the boy who was stolen from his Indian parents at eighteen month, and who is possibly adoption by a Dutch family. Dohle brought the biological parents in contact with a lawyer, whom has for years requested the Dutch adoptive parents for a DNA test, so far unsuccessfully.
Dohle and Post, in collaboration with a local human rights organization, also managed to thwart Madonna. The Court of Malawi first refused her adoption of Chifundo 'Mercy' James, because she is not a resident of Malawi, as the law demands. The Judge based his decision on knowledge provided by Dohle, he says. In second instance the U.S. megastar could eventually got the girl. Post laments: "That´s how adoption works. It's all about money, money, money."
Then there was the recent revelation of adoption agency Wereldkinderen that Ethiopian 'orphans', adopted by Dutch parents, appear to have Ethiopian parents that are very much alive. The agency based its conclusions upon a study done by ACT. As a result Wereldkinderen temporarily stopped adoptions from Ethiopia.
Dohle and Post's indignation is great, their position clear: Inter-country adoption is not a "last resort" for children in the need, but a lucrative market that serves involuntarily childless couples. Adoption has little to do with 'child protection', they say. Those really wanting to help, should invest in a local child protection, and provide care to poor parents, to prevent relinquishment of children.
Recent cases of child trafficking for adoption are not incidents, the two claim. But can they prove that?
Yes, say Post and Dohle: they have so far investigated over one hundred adoption cases and found irregularities in all of them, ranging form abduction of children to wrong files, based on which local judges approved an adoption. "It is a crime to dis-inform the court."
And sometimes the paper work is correct, but mothers didn't know what they signed for. Dohle: "They do not understand what it means to waive their parental rights. They think they can take their child back in their arms, when it reaches age 18"
But: over one hundred acts of wrong-doing, does not show that the approximately 36,000 inter-country adoptions per year are not done well. They do not provide evidence of large-scale corruption and crime. Post sighs deeply at this conclusion: "How much more evidence do you need?" She calls it turning the world upside down: "The adoption agencies should provide evidence that their adoptions are ethical. But that they can and will not do. These agencies stay inactive, they don't investigate anything. Their records are often so vague, you wouldn't buy a second hand car based upon them."
But a messy file does not yet indicate child trafficking or unethical adoption? Post: "The biggest problem is that parents who consider relinquishing their child, for example because they have no money for food, usually don't receive any alternative help. No coaching, no loan, no other recourse but relinquishment and adoption. Adoption Agencies have all sorts of aid projects, but those are intended for other families, not for parents that potentially relinquish. "
Doesn't the evil Dohle and Post are convinced of, not color their perception? "If only that were true," says Post. "We are not against adoption, but against child trafficking. Unfortunately those two can not be distinguished from one another."
Who are the adoption fighters?
Roelie Post acquired her knowledge about adoption in Romania, where she worked on behalf of the European Commission, for many years. She saw crowded orphanages and aggressive foreign adoption agencies running their "Legalized child trafficking". "The supply was made to match the high demand," Post says. In her book "Romania. For export only. The untold story of the Romanian orphans' (2007) she reports about her experiences.
Together with the Romanian authorities, the European Commission, closed the major children's homes and established a system of child protection, that takes care of Romanian children in their own country. But an active lobby kept pressing for the 'export' of Romanian children, which Post strongly opposes.
That lobby made her work for the European Commission impossible Post said. She was finally seconded to Against Child Trafficking (ACT), an organization she founded herself. "I've seen children get sucked into the system, instead of helping them," she says. "I must share my knowledge about adoption, that is my social responsibility. Nobody else comes up for these children."
Post found a supporter: Arun Dohle, an Indian who was adopted by German parents. Dohle has been doing research into his own roots from India, for years. He suspects that he is an illegitimate child of a member of the famous Pawar family. Before the court of Bombay, Dohle demanded the identity of his mother to be revealed, but the case so far is hindered by "the power of the family". His quest became a true Indian media hype. "Son of Pawar wants to know who his mother is," the newspapers headlined.
"I discovered my adoption is complete shit, the paperwork is nothing but a bunch of lies," says Dohle. "Nowhere in my file is a waiver of parental rights, signed by my mother. I think they took me away from her under duress." Dohle also examined some hundred adoption files from other adoptees, which according to him, all contain irregularities.
http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/41521
Separation Anxiety Disorder:
Separation Anxiety Disorder: Diagnosis of the Week
By Brittany • Dec 28th, 2009 • Category: Psychology Diagnosis of the Week
Separation Anxiety Disorder is a mental health disorder that afflicts 4- 5% of children and adolescents. Separation anxiety is a normal part of childhood development, but by the age of 4 most children are able to maintain a sense of independence. Separation Anxiety Disorder is marked by excessive anxiety caused by the temporary separation from parents or other adult caregivers. It can be found in children between the ages of 4 and 18, but it generally begins in children between 7 to 9 years of age.
Normal childhood development
Anxiety caused by the approach of strangers or by separation from caregivers is a normal stage in the development of children. Once an infant learns to identify caregivers, the approach of an unfamiliar person can cause anxiety. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, stranger anxiety is common in infants from 8 months to 2 years of age.
At about 7 months, infants usually learn that caretakers still exist even when they are out of sight. If they do not learn this, it may lead to an attachment to these adults and can cause anxiety. Separation Anxiety is usually strongest between 10 and 18 months of age and generally subsides by 3 years of age. It can manifest at bedtime or when leaving the child with other caretakers, and can cause the child to becomes anxious, cry or refuse to be separated from parents.
Factors that can influence the length and intensity of this stage may include the child’s personality, the routine parents and children go through as they separate and reunite and the parent’s personality. Anxiety in parents tends to be transmitted to their children.
Diagnosis of Separation Anxiety Disorder
If a child fails to pass beyond the separation anxiety stage by the age of 4, this may indicate Separation Anxiety Disorder. To qualify for this diagnosis, three of the following symptoms must be present for more than a month, causing significant stress and problems:
• Excessive anxiety about loss of a loved one.
• Excessive concern about getting lost or kidnapped.
• Repeated refusal to go to school or to be otherwise separated from a loved one.
• Constant fear of going to sleep, unless in the physical presence of caregivers.
• Persistent nightmares about loss or separation from loved ones.
• Physical complaints at the prospect of separation.
Certain other anxiety disorders can also display some of these symptoms so evaluation by health care professionals is important to eliminate the possibility of other underlying causes, such as schizophrenia and ADHD. Diagnosis and treatment is also important as Separation Anxiety Disorder can lead to other, lasting mental health problems later in life, including depression, anxiety and personality disorders.
Treatment of Separation Anxiety Disorder
A study by the National Institute of Mental Health demonstrated that cognitive behavioral therapy and the antidepressant sertraline (Zoloft), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, were both effective treatments. NIMH Director Thomas R. Insel, M.D. commented that, “This study provides strong evidence and reassurance to parents that a well-designed, two-pronged treatment approach is the gold standard, while a single line of treatment is still effective.”
Helping Psychology is brought to you by Argosy University, where getting a degree is one thing. Succeeding, quite another.
http://helpingpsychology.com/separation-anxiety-disorder-diagnosis-of-the-week
By Brittany • Dec 28th, 2009 • Category: Psychology Diagnosis of the Week
Separation Anxiety Disorder is a mental health disorder that afflicts 4- 5% of children and adolescents. Separation anxiety is a normal part of childhood development, but by the age of 4 most children are able to maintain a sense of independence. Separation Anxiety Disorder is marked by excessive anxiety caused by the temporary separation from parents or other adult caregivers. It can be found in children between the ages of 4 and 18, but it generally begins in children between 7 to 9 years of age.
Normal childhood development
Anxiety caused by the approach of strangers or by separation from caregivers is a normal stage in the development of children. Once an infant learns to identify caregivers, the approach of an unfamiliar person can cause anxiety. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, stranger anxiety is common in infants from 8 months to 2 years of age.
At about 7 months, infants usually learn that caretakers still exist even when they are out of sight. If they do not learn this, it may lead to an attachment to these adults and can cause anxiety. Separation Anxiety is usually strongest between 10 and 18 months of age and generally subsides by 3 years of age. It can manifest at bedtime or when leaving the child with other caretakers, and can cause the child to becomes anxious, cry or refuse to be separated from parents.
Factors that can influence the length and intensity of this stage may include the child’s personality, the routine parents and children go through as they separate and reunite and the parent’s personality. Anxiety in parents tends to be transmitted to their children.
Diagnosis of Separation Anxiety Disorder
If a child fails to pass beyond the separation anxiety stage by the age of 4, this may indicate Separation Anxiety Disorder. To qualify for this diagnosis, three of the following symptoms must be present for more than a month, causing significant stress and problems:
• Excessive anxiety about loss of a loved one.
• Excessive concern about getting lost or kidnapped.
• Repeated refusal to go to school or to be otherwise separated from a loved one.
• Constant fear of going to sleep, unless in the physical presence of caregivers.
• Persistent nightmares about loss or separation from loved ones.
• Physical complaints at the prospect of separation.
Certain other anxiety disorders can also display some of these symptoms so evaluation by health care professionals is important to eliminate the possibility of other underlying causes, such as schizophrenia and ADHD. Diagnosis and treatment is also important as Separation Anxiety Disorder can lead to other, lasting mental health problems later in life, including depression, anxiety and personality disorders.
Treatment of Separation Anxiety Disorder
A study by the National Institute of Mental Health demonstrated that cognitive behavioral therapy and the antidepressant sertraline (Zoloft), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, were both effective treatments. NIMH Director Thomas R. Insel, M.D. commented that, “This study provides strong evidence and reassurance to parents that a well-designed, two-pronged treatment approach is the gold standard, while a single line of treatment is still effective.”
Helping Psychology is brought to you by Argosy University, where getting a degree is one thing. Succeeding, quite another.
http://helpingpsychology.com/separation-anxiety-disorder-diagnosis-of-the-week
State lawmakers fired up over startling CPS statistics
State lawmakers fired up over startling CPS statistics
By Tracy Vedder
StoryVideoPrintTwitterFacebook Summary
Last month KOMO News reported that the most vulnerable children in Washington are dying at an alarming rate. Key lawmakers plan to use the data uncovered to force stronger protections for children under state custody.
Story Published: Dec 28, 2009 at 8:54 PM PST
Story Updated: Dec 28, 2009 at 10:13 PM PST
Comments (29)OLYMPIA, Wash. -- A ground-breaking problem solver investigation is firing up state lawmakers.
Late last month KOMO News reported that the most vulnerable children in Washington state are dying at an alarming rate.
Key lawmakers plan to use the information uncovered to force stronger protections for children under state custody.
"Am I fired up for this? you're darn right!" said Rep. Mike Armstrong, R-Wenatchee.
KOMO News spent more than two years analyzing the death reports of children who had had some contact with the state's children's administration. The investigation uncovered startling and disturbing numbers.
Since 2002, the state ruled 121 children died of abuse or neglect. That's more than one child dying every single month.
Michael Ravenell's son, Kekoa, was one of those children. Ravenell called Child Protective Services several times, concerned his son was being abused.
"Bottom line: the system failed me," said Ravenell. "I wish he was still with us here."
Both state Sen. Val Stevens, R-Arlington, and Armstrong were shocked by what KOMO's investigation revealed.
"My fire has just grown as I watched, as I watched your show and your presentation," Armstrong said. "I got emotional the first time I saw it."
Armstrong will push the Legislature in January to break apart the Department of Social and Health Services and make children's administration a separate agency.
Currently DSHS dwarfs all other state agencies with a nearly $20 billion budget and 19,000 employees.
"Everybody that works at DSHS considers their agency to be an agency, within an agency, within an agency," said Armstrong.
Stevens has worked for years to improve the system but says she's never been able to get hard numbers from the state. Those are the startling numbers of child fatalities that KOMO News compiled.
"(I've asked myself) 'Why are they doing this?Is it deliberate?' And I've come to the conclusion, 'oh, amen, it is deliberate.'"
Susan Dreyfus, the new secretary of DSHS, promises both accountability and transparency.
"We have to be accountable," she said. "There is no worse day in this state when a child's not safe in their own home. I mean, it is of urgent importance."
But both Armstrong and Stevens say while they respect Dreyfus' commitment, no one person can handle such a large agency.
"I have reached my limit - my patience - children are dying," Stevens said.
And while both Stevens and Armstrong are Republicans, they're adamant that protecting children isn't partisan. In fact, nearly as many Democrats as Republicans have signed onto Armstrong's bill.
"Somebody's gotta be fighting for these kids," said Armstrong.
But Armstrong is also realistic. January will be just a short legislative session, and the state is facing major budget shortfalls.
So Armstrong plans to use KOMO's investigation to push the issue this session, get other legislators on board and build up steam for 2011.
The state children's administration disputes the problem solvers numbers, saying only 105 children died of abuse or neglect since 2002. The agency claims "any death of a child is tragic" and "they continue to learn from these tragedies."
KOMO News stands by all of the information uncovered during the investigation
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/80246122.html
By Tracy Vedder
StoryVideoPrintTwitterFacebook Summary
Last month KOMO News reported that the most vulnerable children in Washington are dying at an alarming rate. Key lawmakers plan to use the data uncovered to force stronger protections for children under state custody.
Story Published: Dec 28, 2009 at 8:54 PM PST
Story Updated: Dec 28, 2009 at 10:13 PM PST
Comments (29)OLYMPIA, Wash. -- A ground-breaking problem solver investigation is firing up state lawmakers.
Late last month KOMO News reported that the most vulnerable children in Washington state are dying at an alarming rate.
Key lawmakers plan to use the information uncovered to force stronger protections for children under state custody.
"Am I fired up for this? you're darn right!" said Rep. Mike Armstrong, R-Wenatchee.
KOMO News spent more than two years analyzing the death reports of children who had had some contact with the state's children's administration. The investigation uncovered startling and disturbing numbers.
Since 2002, the state ruled 121 children died of abuse or neglect. That's more than one child dying every single month.
Michael Ravenell's son, Kekoa, was one of those children. Ravenell called Child Protective Services several times, concerned his son was being abused.
"Bottom line: the system failed me," said Ravenell. "I wish he was still with us here."
Both state Sen. Val Stevens, R-Arlington, and Armstrong were shocked by what KOMO's investigation revealed.
"My fire has just grown as I watched, as I watched your show and your presentation," Armstrong said. "I got emotional the first time I saw it."
Armstrong will push the Legislature in January to break apart the Department of Social and Health Services and make children's administration a separate agency.
Currently DSHS dwarfs all other state agencies with a nearly $20 billion budget and 19,000 employees.
"Everybody that works at DSHS considers their agency to be an agency, within an agency, within an agency," said Armstrong.
Stevens has worked for years to improve the system but says she's never been able to get hard numbers from the state. Those are the startling numbers of child fatalities that KOMO News compiled.
"(I've asked myself) 'Why are they doing this?Is it deliberate?' And I've come to the conclusion, 'oh, amen, it is deliberate.'"
Susan Dreyfus, the new secretary of DSHS, promises both accountability and transparency.
"We have to be accountable," she said. "There is no worse day in this state when a child's not safe in their own home. I mean, it is of urgent importance."
But both Armstrong and Stevens say while they respect Dreyfus' commitment, no one person can handle such a large agency.
"I have reached my limit - my patience - children are dying," Stevens said.
And while both Stevens and Armstrong are Republicans, they're adamant that protecting children isn't partisan. In fact, nearly as many Democrats as Republicans have signed onto Armstrong's bill.
"Somebody's gotta be fighting for these kids," said Armstrong.
But Armstrong is also realistic. January will be just a short legislative session, and the state is facing major budget shortfalls.
So Armstrong plans to use KOMO's investigation to push the issue this session, get other legislators on board and build up steam for 2011.
The state children's administration disputes the problem solvers numbers, saying only 105 children died of abuse or neglect since 2002. The agency claims "any death of a child is tragic" and "they continue to learn from these tragedies."
KOMO News stands by all of the information uncovered during the investigation
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/80246122.html
Sunday, December 27, 2009
NH Supreme Court Appeal to Return Austin Knightly to His Grandparents
Another Christmas has passed and still no Austin. We have a Supreme Court appeal pending for Austin's return. Will the NH Supreme Court do right by Austin and return him to us, the grandparents he long's for? Will they do the right thing and hold Nashua DCYF accountable for all the illegal practices they've used on Austin and his family? If there is any Justice in the State of NH, they will. Otherwise the corruption within DCYF will still go on until someone finally steps up and put's a stop to it.
I thought we were all set. The Attorney General's Office had ten days to file an objection. It never came, that is until yesterday. Ten days later than the time allotted by the Supreme Court. Will the Supreme Court deny the objection, like they do with the citizens of NH? Or will the AG's office get away with their untimely filing? Like I said before, if there is any Justice, the AG's objection will be denied.
The AG's office claim I have NO Standing. They state the issue of Austin's illegal removal from my home was never brought up in Court and that I never filed anything to fight the removal. It was brought up in District Court and Probate Court. I am just a grandmother. A grandmother who knew nothing about the corruption within DCYF and knew nothing about the law. A grandmother who trusted her Government and it's State agencies. I alway's believed our Government was working for "We the People." Never in my wildest dreams would I ever have thought our own Government would treat it's own citizens in such an ungodly manner. The people we trusted. The people we voted into office, to work for us, not against us.
We were finally afforded a Home study in June of 2008, after the orphanage found a pre-adoptive home for Austin, but the people backed out. Austin know's what he want's and will never be a normal child as long as he is not with us. The people he cares about most in this world.He is now in a pre-adoptive home. The home of the first foster strangers where he tried to hang himself. The home where he was fed pretzels and water and lost three clothes sizes. The home where Anna the homewrecker told Austin not to tell his mother, but he did anyway and then Anna confirmed it.
Austin was scheduled to be adopted this month. He may already have been, since I filed a Stay to stop the adoption and was denied. No surprise. Every motion, petition and appeal I've filed has been denied. The State of NH doesn't treat Pro-Se litigants fairly. If you don't have a bundle of money to pay a Lawyer, your screwed every time.
At the time of the Home Study we were told by three caseworker's not to worry. That they were advocating for placement of Austin with us. We trusted them. Little did we know that their Supervisor and the Director had already set us up from the start, with no inclination to place Austin in our home. We bought him a bed and set up his bedroom with all his favorite toys and pictures. We even set up a Christmas tree, which we haven't done since he was taken. We no longer celebrate holidays. What's a holiday without a child? Losing children is worse than death.
We waited to hear something, constantly calling DCYF. We even asked if we could take Austin for Christmas. It never happened.
One of the Directors claimed the Home Study was done to show us why we couldn't have Austin. If we knew their deceitful plan, we never would have set up a bedroom for him. We were told Austin would be placed with us, so what were we supposed to think?
Were we denied because they had the first foster strangers to fall back on? The foster strangers who told his mother they wanted to adopt him way back when he was first placed?
Is there any justice in this God Forsaken state? Will the Supreme Court rule with fairness this once? Will this corruption end and DCYF be held accountable for their illegal practices? Will our Government bring back our trust? Isn't this America?
Parents Rights 2-16-2009 Nancy Schaefer Speaks at the World Congress on Families
HomeSubscribeAbout NancyNews & IssuesNancy Schaefer's ArticlesParents' Rights
Child Protective ServicesGeorgia Eagle Forum ResourcesPhyllis Schlafly's Reports"Georgia Insights"/Legislation
Sue Ella DeadwylerU.S. Congressional and
Federal InformationGeorgia State and
Local Government Make Checks Payable to:
Eagle Forum of Georgia, Inc.
458 Yates Circle
Clakesville, Georgia 30523
Nancy Schaefer
Former State Senator of Georgia
President, Eagle Forum of Georgia
Eagle Forum National Chairman of Parents' Rights
Contact information
458 Yates Circle
Clarkesville, GA 30523
Phone: (706) 754-8321
Fax: (706) 754-1803
Website: EagleForumOfGeorgia.org
Email: nancy.schaefer@nancyschaefer.com
Parents' Rights
+ Review other Parents' Rights Articles
09-03-2009 Hear Nancy Schaefer's speech in Amsterdam, The Netherlands 8-16-098-16-2009 Nancy Schaefer Speaks at the World Congress on Families8-08-2009 Nancy Schaefer goes to Amsterdam7-18-2009 Texas Senate Bill 1440 to increase power to Child Protective Services was vetoed by Governor Rick Perry.3-19-2009 What Happened to SB 4159-26-2008 Nancy Schaefer speaks on Child Protective Services at the Eagle Forum National Conference on September 26, 2008 in Washington, D.C.UPDATED - September 25, 2008 - THE CORRUPT BUSINESS OF CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES2-18-2008 SB 415 - Senator Schaefer introduces legislation to protect children in government care2-18-2009 Senate Press Release on SB 41512-20-2007 The Mental Heath Screening of Children3-09-2007 - SB 278 - A Bill relating to Family Court and Juvenile Proceedings
8-16-2009 Nancy Schaefer Speaks at the World Congress on Families
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Schaefer
President of Eagle Forum of Georgia Nancy Schaefer
August 27, 2009
Nancy Schaefer, President of Eagle Forum of Georgia and Eagle Forum's National Chairman for Parents' Rights, spoke at the World Congress on Families V in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, on August 11, 2009.
Pro-family leaders and groups from 63 nations attended the World Congress of Families V. 900 delegates were Dutch and other nations represented included, United States, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Chile, the U.K., Ireland, Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Romania, Poland, Latvia, Moldavia, Slovakia, Russia, Nigeria, Ghana, the Democratic Republic, of Congo, Kenya, Pakistan, Australia, and the Philippines. More than 3,000 people around the world watched the live telecast via the Internet.
On August 16th, Schaefer delivered, via cyber space, her speech to the Nordic Committee for Human Rights (NCHR) in Gothenburg, Sweden on the protection of Family Rights in Nordic countries.
Schaefer spoke on "The Unlimited Power of Child Protective Services" (CPS).
She told her audience "children are seized unnecessarily from their families due to federal aid created in 1974 entitled "The Adoption and Safe Families Act." It offers financial incentives to the States that increase adoption numbers. To receive the 'adoption incentives' or 'bonuses', local CPS must have more children. They must have merchandise that sells… this is an abuse of power. It is lack of accountability and it is a growing criminal/political phenomenon spreading around the globe."
To hear the entire speech click here.
Nancy Schaefer wrote a scathing report on "The Corruption of Child Protective Services" while serving as a State Senator of Georgia.
To read or to get a copy of Schaefer's "Report" or her speech in Amsterdam, please visit the Eagle Forum of Georgia website at www.eagleforumofgeorgia.org
“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord”
Psalm 33:12
Eagle Forum of Georgia
Phone: 706-754-8321
http://www.eagleforumofga.org/parents_rights_child_protective_services.php?filter=10
Child Protective ServicesGeorgia Eagle Forum ResourcesPhyllis Schlafly's Reports"Georgia Insights"/Legislation
Sue Ella DeadwylerU.S. Congressional and
Federal InformationGeorgia State and
Local Government Make Checks Payable to:
Eagle Forum of Georgia, Inc.
458 Yates Circle
Clakesville, Georgia 30523
Nancy Schaefer
Former State Senator of Georgia
President, Eagle Forum of Georgia
Eagle Forum National Chairman of Parents' Rights
Contact information
458 Yates Circle
Clarkesville, GA 30523
Phone: (706) 754-8321
Fax: (706) 754-1803
Website: EagleForumOfGeorgia.org
Email: nancy.schaefer@nancyschaefer.com
Parents' Rights
+ Review other Parents' Rights Articles
09-03-2009 Hear Nancy Schaefer's speech in Amsterdam, The Netherlands 8-16-098-16-2009 Nancy Schaefer Speaks at the World Congress on Families8-08-2009 Nancy Schaefer goes to Amsterdam7-18-2009 Texas Senate Bill 1440 to increase power to Child Protective Services was vetoed by Governor Rick Perry.3-19-2009 What Happened to SB 4159-26-2008 Nancy Schaefer speaks on Child Protective Services at the Eagle Forum National Conference on September 26, 2008 in Washington, D.C.UPDATED - September 25, 2008 - THE CORRUPT BUSINESS OF CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES2-18-2008 SB 415 - Senator Schaefer introduces legislation to protect children in government care2-18-2009 Senate Press Release on SB 41512-20-2007 The Mental Heath Screening of Children3-09-2007 - SB 278 - A Bill relating to Family Court and Juvenile Proceedings
8-16-2009 Nancy Schaefer Speaks at the World Congress on Families
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Schaefer
President of Eagle Forum of Georgia Nancy Schaefer
August 27, 2009
Nancy Schaefer, President of Eagle Forum of Georgia and Eagle Forum's National Chairman for Parents' Rights, spoke at the World Congress on Families V in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, on August 11, 2009.
Pro-family leaders and groups from 63 nations attended the World Congress of Families V. 900 delegates were Dutch and other nations represented included, United States, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Chile, the U.K., Ireland, Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Romania, Poland, Latvia, Moldavia, Slovakia, Russia, Nigeria, Ghana, the Democratic Republic, of Congo, Kenya, Pakistan, Australia, and the Philippines. More than 3,000 people around the world watched the live telecast via the Internet.
On August 16th, Schaefer delivered, via cyber space, her speech to the Nordic Committee for Human Rights (NCHR) in Gothenburg, Sweden on the protection of Family Rights in Nordic countries.
Schaefer spoke on "The Unlimited Power of Child Protective Services" (CPS).
She told her audience "children are seized unnecessarily from their families due to federal aid created in 1974 entitled "The Adoption and Safe Families Act." It offers financial incentives to the States that increase adoption numbers. To receive the 'adoption incentives' or 'bonuses', local CPS must have more children. They must have merchandise that sells… this is an abuse of power. It is lack of accountability and it is a growing criminal/political phenomenon spreading around the globe."
To hear the entire speech click here.
Nancy Schaefer wrote a scathing report on "The Corruption of Child Protective Services" while serving as a State Senator of Georgia.
To read or to get a copy of Schaefer's "Report" or her speech in Amsterdam, please visit the Eagle Forum of Georgia website at www.eagleforumofgeorgia.org
“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord”
Psalm 33:12
Eagle Forum of Georgia
Phone: 706-754-8321
http://www.eagleforumofga.org/parents_rights_child_protective_services.php?filter=10
Cut the Power of the Family Courts
Cut the Power of the Family Courts
by Phyllis Schlafly December 25, 2009
Do you think judges should have the power to decide what religion your children must belong to and which churches they may be prohibited from attending? We have long suspected that family courts are the most dictatorial and biased of all U.S. courts, routinely depriving divorced fathers of due process rights and authority over their own children, but this December a Chicago judge went beyond the pale.
Cook County Circuit Judge Edward Jordan issued a restraining order to prohibit Joseph Reyes from taking his three-year-old daughter to any non-Jewish religious activities because the ex-wife argued that would contribute to "the emotional detriment of the child." Mrs. Rebecca Reyes wants to raise her daughter in the Jewish religion, and the judge sided with the mother.
As Joseph Reyes' divorce attorney, Joel Brodsky, said when he saw the judge's restraining order, "I almost fell off my chair. I thought maybe we were in Afghanistan and this was the Taliban." The lawyer is appealing.
Doesn't the First Amendment extend to fathers? Apparently not if they are divorced. This case sounds extreme, but it is a good illustration of how family courts, the lowest in the judicial hierarchy, have become the most dictatorial of all courts because of the tremendous number of families and amounts of private money they control and the lack of accountability for their decisions.
In another divorce case this year, a family court in New Hampshire (where the state motto is "Live Free or Die") ordered ten-year-old Amanda Kurowski to quit being homeschooled by her mother and instead to attend fifth grade in the local public school. Judge Lucinda V. Sadler approved the court-appointed expert's view that Amanda "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith" and that Amanda "would be best served by exposure to multiple points of view."
Where did family court judges get the power to decide what church and what school the children of divorced parents must attend? Family court judges have amassed this extraordinary power by co-opting and changing the definition of a time-honored concept: "the best interest of the child."
This rule originally came from English common law as compiled by William Blackstone in 1765, and meant that parents are presumed to act in their own children's best interest. For centuries, English and American courts honored parents' rights by recognizing the legal presumption that the best interest of a child is whatever a fit parent says it is, and should not be second-guessed by a judge.
When states revised their family-law statutes in the 1970s, the "best interest of the child" became disconnected from parents' decisions, and family courts assumed the discretion to decide the best interest of children of divorced and unmarried parents.
The notion that persons other than parents should decide what is in a child's best interest is illustrated by the slogan "it takes a village to raise a child." Those who use that slogan understand "village" to mean government courts, government schools, or government social workers.
The trouble with the best-interest rule is that it is totally subjective; it's a matter of individual opinion. Parents make hundreds of different decisions, and should have the right to make their decisions even if they contravene the self-appointed experts.
Whether the decision is big (such as where to go to church or school), or small (such as playing baseball or soccer) there is no objective way to say which is "best."
Since judges are supposed to base their decisions on evidence presented in open court, and there is no objective basis for deciding thousands of questions involved in raising a child, judges call on the testimony of expert witnesses. A big industry has grown up of psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, custody evaluators, and counselors who are eager to collect fees for giving their opinions.
Having opinions produced by persons with academic degrees is a way to make subjective and arbitrary judgments appear objective. With the volume of cases coming through family courts, judges can evade responsibility for controversial decisions by rubber-stamping opinions of these court-appointed experts.
Scientific American Mind published a scholarly paper in October 2005 by three noted psychologists who explained that the practice of allowing courts to be de facto decision makers "is legally, morally and scientifically wrong. . . . Parents should determine their children's lives after separation, just as when they are married. . . . Parents, not judges or mental health professionals, are the best experts on their own children."
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2009/dec09/09-12-25.html
by Phyllis Schlafly December 25, 2009
Do you think judges should have the power to decide what religion your children must belong to and which churches they may be prohibited from attending? We have long suspected that family courts are the most dictatorial and biased of all U.S. courts, routinely depriving divorced fathers of due process rights and authority over their own children, but this December a Chicago judge went beyond the pale.
Cook County Circuit Judge Edward Jordan issued a restraining order to prohibit Joseph Reyes from taking his three-year-old daughter to any non-Jewish religious activities because the ex-wife argued that would contribute to "the emotional detriment of the child." Mrs. Rebecca Reyes wants to raise her daughter in the Jewish religion, and the judge sided with the mother.
As Joseph Reyes' divorce attorney, Joel Brodsky, said when he saw the judge's restraining order, "I almost fell off my chair. I thought maybe we were in Afghanistan and this was the Taliban." The lawyer is appealing.
Doesn't the First Amendment extend to fathers? Apparently not if they are divorced. This case sounds extreme, but it is a good illustration of how family courts, the lowest in the judicial hierarchy, have become the most dictatorial of all courts because of the tremendous number of families and amounts of private money they control and the lack of accountability for their decisions.
In another divorce case this year, a family court in New Hampshire (where the state motto is "Live Free or Die") ordered ten-year-old Amanda Kurowski to quit being homeschooled by her mother and instead to attend fifth grade in the local public school. Judge Lucinda V. Sadler approved the court-appointed expert's view that Amanda "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith" and that Amanda "would be best served by exposure to multiple points of view."
Where did family court judges get the power to decide what church and what school the children of divorced parents must attend? Family court judges have amassed this extraordinary power by co-opting and changing the definition of a time-honored concept: "the best interest of the child."
This rule originally came from English common law as compiled by William Blackstone in 1765, and meant that parents are presumed to act in their own children's best interest. For centuries, English and American courts honored parents' rights by recognizing the legal presumption that the best interest of a child is whatever a fit parent says it is, and should not be second-guessed by a judge.
When states revised their family-law statutes in the 1970s, the "best interest of the child" became disconnected from parents' decisions, and family courts assumed the discretion to decide the best interest of children of divorced and unmarried parents.
The notion that persons other than parents should decide what is in a child's best interest is illustrated by the slogan "it takes a village to raise a child." Those who use that slogan understand "village" to mean government courts, government schools, or government social workers.
The trouble with the best-interest rule is that it is totally subjective; it's a matter of individual opinion. Parents make hundreds of different decisions, and should have the right to make their decisions even if they contravene the self-appointed experts.
Whether the decision is big (such as where to go to church or school), or small (such as playing baseball or soccer) there is no objective way to say which is "best."
Since judges are supposed to base their decisions on evidence presented in open court, and there is no objective basis for deciding thousands of questions involved in raising a child, judges call on the testimony of expert witnesses. A big industry has grown up of psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, custody evaluators, and counselors who are eager to collect fees for giving their opinions.
Having opinions produced by persons with academic degrees is a way to make subjective and arbitrary judgments appear objective. With the volume of cases coming through family courts, judges can evade responsibility for controversial decisions by rubber-stamping opinions of these court-appointed experts.
Scientific American Mind published a scholarly paper in October 2005 by three noted psychologists who explained that the practice of allowing courts to be de facto decision makers "is legally, morally and scientifically wrong. . . . Parents should determine their children's lives after separation, just as when they are married. . . . Parents, not judges or mental health professionals, are the best experts on their own children."
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2009/dec09/09-12-25.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)