Wednesday, March 3, 2010

I sent a Constructive Notice of Instruction to My State Rep.!!!

To all those people who don't believe that a Constructive Notice of Instruction produces results than read the very FIRST reply that I have receive from my so called Rep. Doug Bennett (D) in the 92nd District. I was beginning to wonder if Doug Bennett was even a real person as I have NEVER received any response form him before this. It's evident from Mr. Bennett's response that he does not support Parental Rights.

Perhaps Parents should form a UNION, then Doug Bennett would be more supportive of them.

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Doug Bennett"
Date: March 3, 2010 4:27:12 PM GMT-05:00
To: "Rose"
Subject: Re: Parental Rights House Concurrent Resolution

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lear,

Thank you for letting me know your support for Rep. Joel Sheltrown's House Concurrent Resolution about parental rights. I appreciate hearing from you, but at this time I am not co-sponsoring the resolution.

Sincerely,

Doug Bennett
State Representative
92nd District


>>> Rose
"Dear Representative Bennett,

I am contacting you to INSTRUCT (Article 1 § 3 Michigan Constitution) that you become a Co-Sponsor of the Parental Rights House Concurrent Resolution that Representative Sheltrown will have on his desk on the floor of the House of Representatives today, Tuesday and Wednesday.

This resolution stands for Michigan's State interests by preventing ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which would transfer jurisdiction over family law from the state to the federal level.

The resolution also protects the traditional liberty of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, because that same treaty would take away parents' rights and make them merely agents of the state in raising children.

The Amendment being called for will also protect families from the shifting view of the Supreme Court pertaining to parental rights; as it is now, while states like Michigan continue to uphold traditional parental rights, the federal courts are less and less clear on what legal standard to use. The Amendment will adopt the same view our state now upholds.

The resolution will also communicate clearly to the U.S. Congress that Michigan cares deeply about the traditional freedom of parents, and that we want them to take appropriate action to preserve that freedom.
Could you please let me know by this Thursday that you have signed as a Co-sponsor?


With sincere thanks,

William & Rose Lear

Address

Phone

12 comments:

Jan said...

What ARE the traditional rights of parents?
WHERE are these stated?
What rights do you say children have, or do not have?
How would children being recognised to have rights necessary for the well-being be at odds with parents rights?
I am curious.

Joemaflage said...

Jan the traditional rights of parents are numerous and fall under something refered to as NATURAL rights since they have been around longer then our Constitution. Governments have always tried to find a way to overstep the roles of parents though. Our own Supreme court has ruled that the role of parents is of the highest standard and that the child is not just a creature of the state and this ruling has been used to win numerous cases for parental rights against government laws such as grand parent rights or CPS. Troxel v Granville. Below is just a small list of some of the caselaw info I have available on this but feel free to email me and I will get you links etc that you may want to look into more. joejurecki@achildsright.net Or www.myspace.com/familyrights
As for childrens rights etc the international agency that wants to push the Right of the child agenda is doing so to overstep parents rights and force the parents to raise children as the government dictates. It would have negative impacts against home school, religion,Gun Rights, And numerous other issues that are for the parents to decide for one and the other is as simple as we do not need a foreign agency dictating the laws of the Republic under any circumstance. We are a Free and Sovern nation and we do not need to have other countries determine how we live our lives or raise our children.

1 Recent Supreme Court Decisions Related to Child Support Enforcement
1.1 TROXEL ET VIR. V. GRANVILLE, 530 U.S. _____ (2000) (NO.99-138)
1.2 U.S. V. MORRISON, BRZONKALA V. MORRISON, 529 U.S. ____ (2000)
2 BLESSING V. FREESTONE AND ITS PROGENY
2.1 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
2.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY
2.3 BLESSING - TYPE CASES PENDING
2.4 State Distribution Unit (SDU)
2.5 Recent "1983" Cases Outside of Child Support
3 SPENDING CLAUSE/ TENTH AMENDMENT
4 PATERNITY LITIGATION
4.1 VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY
4.2 GENETIC TESTING AND DISESTABLISHMENT OF PATERNITY
4.3 UNIFORM PARENTAGE ACT
4.4 DISESTABLISHING PATERNITY OF OUT-OF-WEDLOCK CHILDREN
4.5 RECENT PATERNITY DECISIONS
4.6 BIOLOGICAL FATHER'S INTEREST (PRESUMPTIONS OF PATERNITY)
5 CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY CASES
5.1 REPRESENTATION BY CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
5.2 SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
5.3 DUE PROCESS
5.4 DEFENSES TO ENFORCEMENT
6 FEDERAL REMEDIES AND DEFENSES
6.1 ENFORCEMENT BY INTERCEPTING FEDERAL PAYMENTS, INCLUDING TAX REFUNDS
6.2 BANKRUPTCY (SEE ALSO TAX INTERCEPT CASES)
6.3 FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
6.4 CHILD SUPPORT RECOVERY ACT
7 ESTABLISHING/ENFORCING THE ORDER
7.1 IMPACT OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS PAID TO THE CHILD
7.2 WORKERS COMP. AND SSI BENEFITS PAID TO THE PARENT
7.3 LUMP SUM PAYMENT OF FUTURE SUPPORT
7.4 AWARD OF RETROACTIVE SUPPORT
7.5 PAYMENTS DIRECTLY TO CHILDREN AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
7.6 ENFORCEMENT REMEDIES
7.7 JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AGENCY DECISIONS
7.8 MODIFICATION
7.9 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
7.10 FEDERAL CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION LIMIT
7.11 STEP PARENT AS OBLIGOR
7.12 VISITATION AND CUSTODY
7.13 NON-COOPERATION IN ESTABLISHING CHILD SUPPORT AND PATERNITY
8 INTERSTATE CHILD SUPPORT LITIGATION
9 JURISDICTION TO DECIDE CASES INVOLVING NATIVE AMERICANS
10 PASSPORT DENIAL
A Table of Cases, Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)

Jan said...

Joemaflage

I have been reading a great deal of similar viewpoints from the States. I have to say candidly that I have rarely encountered so much mythology and wilful self-deception.

You say there are these natural parent rights, and you may well be right, I am a parent and grandparent etc - the feelings of a UK parent will not differ from a US parent or indeed many other nations as to our rights and duties.

But ... if you are going to oppose the UNCRC, you do need to spell out what those parental rights are, before any valid discussion can take place. This campaign for a Parental Rights Amendment - people will have to say what those rights are, or you will spend all your time in the courts of the USA up to the Supreme Court as they struggle to decide what the heck it means.

Secondly, whether or not you sign up to the UNCRC, if you define parental rights, then there HAS to be a similar effort to define exactly what ARE the Rights of the Child.

Do they indeed have rights? And if so why should they?

The issues around the two sets of rights are quite different - parents as adults will have any rights by virtue of their majority age status and their equality before the law and constitutionally.

The child will have rights based on its non-majority, its vulnerability an also its equality before the law and constitutionally.

For example, few would argue the right of a parent to raise its child without improper interference from the state, and that the state is there to support them and also to protect children as the last resort when parenting fails. The UN Convention certainly recognises this primary role of parents.

But is this within a context of parent as owner of child or as holding in trust during minority. Very crucial issues revolve around this and I can tell you that in all the countries that have signed up, it is still not resolved to remove all chances of abuse to children. Marriage at 8 years? Abusive Child Labour? These are matters the UNCRC would push nations to eliminate. You surely would not disagree with that?

It seems to me that it is when those who oppose signing the UNCRC think about religious belief that the problem starts.

Does the CRC allow parents to raise children in their faith? Surely it does. Does this mean that parents may compel a child to believe? That is, I must say, an issue even for your own Constitution. A parent may be at liberty to compel a child to attend e.g. the parents' church. But to believe? Let's suppose a 14 year old says to parents I do not believe in your faith, I have my own now.

The CRC says the child has a right to choose, after parental guidance undoubtedly. What would US courts say? There is the practical aspect that children attain majority and will decide anyway ....

But let's get one thing clear. The UNCRC is not a treaty that tells nations what they must do. It is aspirational, in other words, what the community of nations are aiming towards. The CRC is the World's most signed-up to treaty. Some nations like S Africa actually incorporate its provisions into their national law and it can be cited in cases before their courts.

Jan said...

Part 2

In the UK, we have not, and we have also entered derogations limiting some aspects of our compliance (some of them shameful).

Is there a court to enforce the CRC at international level where recalcitrant nations can be hauled? No. A means of children to appeal individually against their governments? No.

So what mechanism is there? Simply a committee of experts who know their stuff and whose duty it is to consider reports from each country every five years, and then to make any recommendations, not instructions. This process means the national government has an opportunity to focus on child-related matters, and also civil society can make its own submissions, often detailing issues which are felt to be areas where government has not done its job. Groups include faith bodies, children's rights groups, even kids themselves. The NGO reports from the UK last time put the Government to shame in my view.

So the CRC acts to support parents and children. We have seen it work here, not as well maybe as kids need, because in the end of the day the recommendations are for government. We can use them to gee up government but you will be amazed how stubborn our govt has been over things you and I might well agree upon.

I read of there being a unique constitutional issue for the US around international treaties BUT your own academic legal guys have shown already this has been dealt with before re other treaties.

Will children have the right to skip school and go and play as has been actually claimed? Well, let's not be daft! The CRC makes it clear there are constraints which are their for the Child's protection even from itself! The CRC does not proclaim rights at odds with parents' but it does say parental rights have limits also.

Religion is the issue driving the current opposition. That lobby needs to come clean on to what extent parents have a right to impose belief, or indeed whether anyone has the right to impose faith on another. I think your whole constitutional settlement has something to say about that - if people aren't sure maybe it's for your own courts to be asked to decide ....

I am involved with a children's play campaign based on Article 31 of the CRC, Right to Play, Rest and Leisure:
web link

Rose said...

Jan, I really fail to understand the thinking of you people in the UK. My children are mine to raise as I see fit, not the state or the UN.

That's all the definition we in the US need.

Here's a great idea, why don't you host the UN in your country because we don't want them here.

Jan said...

Rose

No one said the CRC does that. It's an aspiration. Parents raise kids worldwide. The CRC doesn't instruct them. You say everything is OK for every American kid? Go on with you! This is pure anti-UN stuff is it? You don't have to have the UN there, there's Geneva where there's a good deal of UN stuff anyway. Stop being bleeding martyrs, you offered the space in the first place?

My children are mine to raise as I see fit But WHAT does that MEAN? How far does that GO? That is what you folk will NOT answer? I gave you the 14 year old who wants to believe differently to his folks. Never mind the UNCRC, what do YOU say about that? And what about your Constitution on that?

For God's Sake, someone from your side ANSWER! Never mind how I think, what is your take on that simple question?????

Rose said...

When I was a child, my parents who raised 10 children were secure in the fact that the state had no authority to interfere with how they raised us.

When we were naughty, we got the belt. We learned very fast that we didn't want to be naughty anymore. Today that's called child abuse here and now children run wild without any discipline.

My parents were secure in the knowledge that they could raise us without teachers interfering with our religion. Not today, our children are taught evolution in public schools, sex education in our schools teaching 10 year olds that it's ok to have sex, and very little about the real history of this country and it's founders.

We tired of it and we are tired of the progressives that want to change this into a Global one world government.

Jan said...

Rose

So you say parents can -

- belt a child? The punishment device was a belt? Just checking.

You didn't quite answer about the boy of 14, in a family or one or ten, who says I don't believe what you believe? What does your 'way' say about that? And then your constitution?

And if your neighbours, also good Americans, here parents whoppin' the hell out their kids and think it's wrong? They may also be Christians. What do they do when they hear kids hollerin'? "Oh Martha it's their right as parents"? when you don't know if that kid is just yellin' or he is being literally beaten and bruised?

Jesus said something about NOT walking by on the other side.

Evolution is a scientific theory not a belief. Religion and science in this do not mix. Religion is about what you believe, but with evolution, it's an attempt to explain how things have come to be as they are. It's filled in a lot of the picture but there are huge gaps, and maybe we'll never get the truth in full. Maybe we'll find a better explanation one day. Whatever it is, it's pretty wonderful.

For me, it's not incompatible with religion but you probably have a problem with that. The US signing the CRC won't make the argument any different, you have that argument about a child's right to know and a parent's right to say what a child can know which is part of your legal scene already.

And being a member state of the UN is something you lot signed up to in 1945 and urged every new nation created after that to do the same. You used it to act against Saddam first time around (and when the French and the Russians blocked it we joined you to do the job second time) (but what a mess afterwards and you can't blame the UN for that).

Why is there no smallpox today, something people used to believe was a scourge of God, a curse of mankind for centuries for its sins, for as long as we can see back.

Nations used the UN system, and now it's a lab specimen. You don't want to be part of that? Polio next?

The French certainly don't want World Government, nor the Russians or the Chinese ... nor in Britain ... in fact, apart from a very few idealists with no influence, no one's signed up for it.

You might like to ask us if anyone of us want a red-neck congressman speaking for us in a world parliament? No way no thanks no chance.

What and make us have your lack-of-healthcare system when someone here can get access to health because we pay national not private healthcare premiums, taken from our wages with income tax. Not perfect but I paid in all my working life and now I get a weekly pension and free medicine, no hospital bills. Some sneer this is socialist. Who gives a flying f-f-f-fig what they say, it's common sense.

No, if world government means people here don't get that, forget it.

And we've just seen what World-Government-by-Wall-Street has meant. We'll be paying for their greed for decades.

Rose said...

Jan,

for some reason people like you think that I must justify and debate them on my beliefs.

I don't. If you want to start your own blog and post your positions on the world as you see it than by all means do so.

In this country, we have personal rights that come from GOD and the state, federal government, and yes, even the united nations have no right to interfere in those rights granted to us by GOD.

The truth of the matter is that there is more child abuse and child sex abuse in cases were the child is in the custody of the state and less in the family.

You in the UK are entitled to run your country any way you want and give the government as much authority over you as you want. Over here, we have seen where that has led you and we don't want it.

Jan said...

Well why do you leave your blog open to comments? Just to hear folk say "Oh gee I agree with you". I keep reading how great it is over there, and how awful the rest of us are for adopting the UN Convention.

I really would like it if all you guys at least got your facts right and stopped being so paranoid.

We don't want to force anything on you, live your lives as you see fit, so long as you treat your kids OK - which is what the hell the UNCRC is about.

NO ANSWER from you on the 14 year old kid and his wish to choose religion for himself. Answer it, or you LOSE your case, full stop.

I don't want to run a blog, I just want you people to stop avoiding answering questions that what you say in your blogs give rise to.

Your final statement - then we get claims that most abuse occurs in the child's home. We know well enough that abuse in institutions has gone on and at a sickening and serious level, These are often kids without parents, or parents who also have grossly abused them. What do you think the UNCRC says about it? Condones it?

Where do you get this idea that the CRC is about the state taking over? That just ain't so.

Plenty of people across the world believe their rights are God-given, you aren't special.

Yes you do have to justify your case about parental rights, because we all need to know, in every country, what these are, and most of us believe these are not unlimited, we can do what we want with our kids. No civilised nations operates like that, including the US. There are limits to parental authority.

You refuse to answer. As I say, case thus lost. I come away from another encounter none the wiser, I have heard the same from people like you over here, no difference.

You don't ssy what rights kids have either. We seem to have to assume that you guys are so focussed on this UNCRC fantasy you've all whipped yourselves into that this doesn't matter that much.

Rose said...

You answer your own question with your question.

It says leave a comment!

noun
a remark expressing an opinion or reaction : you asked for comments on the new proposals.

It does not say "Debate"

debate |diˈbāt|
noun
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

Jan said...

Comment. Still no answer ... do you have one?