Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Alan Sears :: Townhall.com Columnist
Utah Case Exemplifies Judicial Contempt for Biological Parents
by Alan Sears
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Because, the Commissioner explained, the psychologist, like Barlow, is a professed Christian – and so incapable of unbiased assessment of anyone who practices homosexual behavior.

That the Commissioner himself might be incapable of unbiased assessment of Christians is not a possibility deemed worthy of consideration.

When Jones pressed for overnight visits with the girl (now living with her mother in Texas), the court ordered Barlow not only to comply, but to cover Jones’ travel fare. Barlow refused, based on her daughter’s strong reaction to these visits – so the court threatened her with everything from a $1,000 fine to up to 30 days in jail.

Happily, now, the Utah Supreme Court has re-discovered common sense, and Barlow and her daughter may soon be able to get on with their lives, free of Jones’ aggressions.

Still, this is far from an isolated case. Courts across the country are grappling with similar cases, all of which raise the fundamental issue of what it means to be a parent … or a family. If the issue is no longer purely biological, and doesn’t involve traditional adoption, what qualifies a person for legal authority in the life of a child? Is it enough to simply want to be a parent to this particular youngster? To have lived, even for a little while, in the same house as the child? Should desire and proximity really trump the biological claims of a mature, loving parent?

Sadly, more and more judges are saying “yes” to those questions, cutting our definitions of parenthood loose from the traditional moorings that have successfully guided societies for thousands of years. In their zeal to embrace an agenda that endorses homosexual behavior, these judges are legally mugging moms and dads all over the nation – supplanting the natural authority of parents to determine their children’s environment and influences with the crude power of the state to enforce its own bigotries.

So far, the U.S. Supreme Court is passing up every opportunity to address these so-called “psychological parenting” cases. Unfortunately, while they wait, a wave of new cases is building, the tide of our culture is turning … and legal chaos is engulfing the American family.

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | < Previous
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Alan Sears, a former federal prosecutor in the Reagan Administration, is president and CEO of the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance employing a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

Be the first to read Alan Sears' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Do Constitutional Parental Rights Matter
Alan Sears made some awsome and very logical points in this article. It's good to hear such logic and truth in the media.

BUT WAIT! Now shouldn't he and those like him take an even larger abuse by the courts to the media and public? IN other words, go do the same for fathers and their children who are trampled on in large numbers daily in divorce where one parent (mothers) are given all the rights and the other parent's rights are stolen, trampled upon and he is enslaved and loses the equal constitutional rights (which Alan points out clearly) to equally be with and parent his kids. Oh, not to mention the kids lose one parent who is made into a salve and a visitor, at best, who is then often barred even from that for frivolous reasons by the mother and the court, or false abuse allegations are used, coupled with illogical, bad or outright criminal judges and commissioners. Most of them ARE this bad today. Just ask good women who this very well, who watch and hear from the drama queens (abusers) doing this.

The same commissioners and judges Alan mentioned are committing this child abuse too. Kids will also more often end up with abusive mothers, rather than with more often non-abusive fathers, this way. Those stats are documented but swept under the rug by these judges and corrupt cohorts.

DHHS has watered-down stats showing that moms, especially single moms abuse and murder their won children far more than their fathers do, and that children are safest when dad is in the home (the real dad that is) or in divorce situations when equal custody is given. Then and only then are the children are safest and do best (according to many studies and verified by the APA in 2006).

Like Alan said, NO judge or commissioner has the right to nix this basic constitutional parental right unless clear and significant parental unfitness is proven in a criminal court, not simply alleged with no proof or chance of true and full rebuttal in family court. So, I guess family court really is "criminal" court.

Most abuse allegations in divorce are shown to be false by many studies and stats. Just because mom cries "abuse!" doesn't mean that it isn't her who is the sole and worst abuser, next to those supporting her in this. It is criminal and it is child abuse to routinely take away fathers' equal parental rights. But this is the organized crime and abuse being committed in our courts daily.

Equal custody - anything less IS child abuse, and a crime against the constitution.


If Jones doesn't like it she should have
That really is a great part of the issue. Had Jones kept her hands where they were supposed to be, Barlow might not have left her and they would still be damaging that little girl together.

It is my understanding that Barlow has married a man and intends to have a family with him. It was at this point that Jones suddenly became interested in being Mommy 2 and insisted upon visitation, etc.

I have a coworker who is a former lesbian. Her long-time lover left her several years ago to pursue another relationship. They have a daughter by artificial insemination. The same thing happened. The ex-lover was interested in occassional visits (what you might expect from a former roommate who had lived with the mother for her child's entire life), but when my friend became involved with a man, the ex-lover suddenly wanted scheduled visitation and to be able to have the child overnight. She couldn't compete financially and, therefore, legally with my friend who makes a lot of money as a counselor, so they were still arguing about after a year. When my friend married and her new husband applied for adoption of the daughter, the ex-lover filed against the adoption, claiming parental rights.

The last I heard, the case was still in court and the adoption has been delayed for over a year. My friend did tell me that the lawyers say there's probably no chance her ex-lover will get custody or even scheduled visitation since all parties are white. Had any of the parties been Alaska Native and the child had even one drop of Alaskan Native blood, the Alaskan Native relationship would have trumped pretty much all others. I know white women in Alaska who were good mothers who lost all custody of their children to the parents, grandparents, and once an aunt of their former husband (as well as all manner of unfit former husbands) because "Native culture" trumps biology and good parenting any day.

It's a sad state our country has come to. It's because we stopped valuing marriage and stopped considering the children before we divorced, cohabitated and otherwise messed with the traditional definition of marriage. I don't know if we can fix it. I'd like to think we can, but it may be too late to do it under the current system and I don't see the current system going anywhere anytime soon.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.