From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Response to Deluge About Hillary Clinton
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:28:31 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Jul22.144714.10646@news.nd.edu> slarsen@verdi.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:

>
>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?  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?

Or what about children who are denied life-saving health care because
their parents refuse to give their permission (citing religious
beliefs)?

>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?
>Maybe H. Clinton's suggestion that a child should be allowed to divorce 
>a parent is unworkable, but at least the woman is trying to find a 
>voice for those whose voices are not loud enough, or strident enough, 
>or persistent enough to get a hearing on their own.

Hear, hear!  We too often assume that parents/guardians are *always*
looking out for the best interst of the children. The current system
isn't working, because there are stories like the ones Susan cites
above. The current system still operates by the rule "No matter what,
a child really does belong with its parents", without regard to
whether the parents might be abusive, or simply not looking our for
the child's best intererst.

Even if a child can get one adult to listen and believe, there is an
entire system of social workers, etc. to convince, and a case is
awfully hard to make. In the meantime, children are either shuffled
between foster homes (having no say in where they go or with whom they
stay) or are simply returned to the home in which the abuse takes
place. As things stand, children are at the mercy of their parents and
the system. In a situation where parents look out for the best
interests of the children, this works. But if a parent or guardian is
abusive, a child is trapped and legally defenseless.

Allowing children to divorce their parents would allow them to
sidestep the moutain of beauracracy that would often have them placed
in the homes of strangers (who, however well meaning, are still
strangers) or returned to their parents (not a good thing, if the
situation is truly abusive). And remember, a child who sought to
divorce his parents would have to prove the grounds on which the
divorce would be granted, as well as proving that she can provide for
her own care or will be living with someone who can provide for her
care until she reaches adulthood. In other words, its not a rubber
stamp.

>Instead of trashing H. Clinton for possibly stepping on a few parental 
>toes, I think the woman should be commended for having the courage to 
>put the force of her personality, learning and reputation to work for 
>the poorest and most legally defenseless segment of our society.

Hear, hear!

>Treat your children well.




-- 
"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
			-Joseph Beam_
Terrance Heath 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights