From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Response to Deluge About Hillary Clinton
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:25:27 GMT

slarsen@verdi.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:

>In article <24037@castle.ed.ac.uk> yfcw06@castle.ed.ac.uk (S R Leather) writes:
>>shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:
>>
>>
>>>This is NOT to say that there aren't real problems with the system.  I
>>>just don't think that this is the answer, and in fact I think it could
>>>be very harmful, in the long run, to the kids themselves, as well as
>>>to society as a whole.
>>
>>In summary, I agree with Anne - keep children children (and safe).  Let
>>them grow up when they are ready to grow up - don't force them to feel
>>that they have to make decisions about sex (safe or otherwise), peer
>>repression etc.  Give them the discipline that they need and
>>(subconciously want) and prepare them to be responsible adults in a safe
>>world.

>But the problem is, when a child is completely dependent on their 
>parents not only for survival, but also protection of their legal 
>rights, some children are not being kept safe.  What mechanisms protected 
>Lisa Steinberg from Joel Steinberg?  What mechanisms protected the 
>little girl from Gary whose parents, a doctor and a school teacher, 
>fed her poison?  What mechanisms protected the little girl in 
>Florida, who ended up with AIDS because the system kept returning her 
>to her guardians?  

As Anne pointed out, the proposed "solution" does not really solve
these problems. As long as parents have the responsibility to raise
their children, they also have the right to do it in the way they
consider best. They may err, they may be abusive, over-controlling,
less than optimal in numerous ways, but it is their call. The truly
horrendous cases often are uncovered in any case; the proposed legal
remedies do nothing in this area. Or would you really rather have Big
Brother looking over the shoulder of every parent to make sure they 
raise their children in the currently approved way?

Granting children the right to bring legal suits against their parents
is largely license to harass legally, and a sure means to enrich the legal
profession. It is the kind of pseudo-liberal nightmare one would expect
from a "concerned" lawyer: yet another legal method to try to coerce
people into being "nice" and "responsible", without regard to the realities
of human behavior and the limits of legal means for achieving social ends.

>And, for the *I* story, what mechanism protected my
>cousin, whose parents did not want to pay for heart surgery, from dying 
>at the age of 16 when his heart literally exploded?

Very sad; right up there with the stories of children dying because their
parents refuse blood transfusions for religious reasons. The point, if
it was missed, is that the courts have upheld the right of parents to
refuse medical treatments for their children on religious grounds, so
your cousin would have died from an exploding heart anyway, except that
his case might have been heard and dismissed by a court, and assorted
lawyers would have had a chance to practice their impassioned oratory,
at $100 an hour.

Once more: the law is a whore; laws do not change people, they merely
punish certain kinds of behavior. Usually, the law is only effective in
getting retribution for a transgression, not in preventing the transgression
in the first place. If it were otherwise, the US would be the least violent
place on earth; after all, we have more extensive legislation, more lawyers,
and more people in jail than any nation.

>The argument that giving children the ability to sue their parents would 
>cause for frivolous lawsuits is, IMO, callous and shallow in light of 
>the huge numbers of children being abused by the same persons who are 
>charged with protecting the interests of the children.  If there is a 
>real failure on the part of the parent, where can a child go for help?

How about a relative, friend, child protective services, the cop on the
corner, the cop in the woodpile, the cop knocking on your front door?

Oh, no! she says, get thee to a lawyer! That will fix things up pronto!
About as effective as a restraining order is for keeping a violent
spouse from killing his wife in a fit of rage.

Sue, your faith in lawyers is touching, but misplaced. As a practical
matter, what do you think will be the typical reaction of a parent
upon finding out that his/her child is bringing suit? Compromise
and reconciliation, or alienation and confrontation? Who pays the
lawyers? What do you suppose will be the effect on the family of a
lawsuit that was decided in favor of the parents? Who pays for what?

Regards,
       H. Biesel s.N.a.
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights