From: M18611@MBVM.Mitre.Org (Kathy Wilk)
Subject: Re: Response to Deluge About Hillary Clinton
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford MA 01730
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:20:40 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.182527.15619@javelin.sim.es.com>
biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
>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
 
  '...but it is their call.'  What???  Because a 'solution' does
not solve the specific problems mentioned  does not mean that it does
not have validity.
 
>horrendous cases often are uncovered in any case; the proposed legal
>remedies do nothing in this area. Or would you really rather have Big
 
  '...horrendous cases often are uncovered in any case;  the proposed
legal remedies do nothing in this area....'  Is this supposed to be
a reassurance that if a crime is really 'tabloid material', then it is
serious enough?  Otherwise, it is a parent's call to watch the limits
of their abuse?
 
>Brother looking over the shoulder of every parent to make sure they
>raise their children in the currently approved way?
 
 Ah hah!  When you start talking about Big Brother, I know where this
argument started and where it is going.  You are having a monologue about
how you are disgusted by lawyers and the legal system and anything that
tampers with what you consider to be nobody's business.  Drop kids out of
this discussion, please.  IT IS NOT ABOUT THEM.
 
>
>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
 
  What do kids have to do with your monologue about the legal system?
 
>people into being "nice" and "responsible", without regard to the realities
>of human behavior and the limits of legal means for achieving social ends.
>
   Your opinion about the realities of human behavior may differ with some-
one else's.  Just a reminder...
 
>>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.
>
 
   Jeez, those lawyers ARE the source of evil in this story, aren't they?
 
>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.
 
   Would you say that law ANYWHERE in the world prevents transgression in the
first place?  Please give us references.
  There are many countries in the world where laws are not so extensive,
because religion takes the place of 'law'.
  I could make just as silly a statement as you just did - try this on for
size:  the Washington, D.C. area is packed with lawyers.  It is also crime-
ridden.  Let's clean up D.C. by moving all the lawyers out!  Makes a lot of
sense, doesn't it?
 
>
>>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.
 
  Without a restraining order, a violent spouse can kill his wife in a
fit of rage.  With one, and the proper vigilance on the part of local
police and courts, she has a chance.  Would you deny her that chance?
Uh, oh,  this smacks of LAW!
  Judging from your anti-law, anti-lawyer stance (and that is all your
post has been about), the answer for the abused wife would be to have a
heart-to-heart with her mother-in-law.
 
>
>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.
 
  The reaction of a parent when his or her child brings suit would have
do with the parent and the child relationship, wouldn't you think, and
how the law is implemented that allows the child to bring suit.  If a
child faces possible death staying in an abusive situation,  he faces
possible death when his parents get angry when he uses his legal power.
The law would have to allow some sort of protection to that child.
  All of your questions (how everything would be handled) have to do with
the way the law is implemented.
 
                        K. Wilk
                        M18611@MBVM.MITRE.ORG
 
            <--********************************-->
 'Thrusting my nose firmly between his teeth, I threw him to the ground
  on top of me.' - Mark Twain
            <--********************************-->
 
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens