| Judges presume fit parents act in child's best interests

On 02 Jan 2004 14:57:10 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

One of the most fundamental tenents of family law, one that has been
acted upon
by numerous Supreme Court decisions upholding such thoughts---is that
fit
parents are presumed to act in a child's best interests.

Please include citations when you make such claims.

So spanking cannot be criminalized,

But it has in many public schools, now hasn't it? And are not public
schools acting in loco parentis? Hmmmm?

lest the Courts have to assume care,
custody and control of all minor children who may have been
physically touched
by parental caregivers.

In fact you just described exactly what society demands of itself.
Otherwise parents could abuse and even murder their children with no
compunction or consequences.

What kind of a country would we live in when Courts, not family,
presume to
determine what is in a child's best interests?

A country where children have the same right to safety that adults do.

Spanking totally legal in the US. By USSC holding.

Odd, I did not find that result..unless you are referring to something
other than.......

Ingraham v Wright

You've trotted this out before and I've corrected you before. Are you
therefore incapable of learning?

Possibly you haven't read some of the analysis so have schools
confused with parents.

http://www.corpun.com/usscr5.htm

If you read the finding:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj.../ingraham.html

YOu will find NO mention of parents whatsoever. And in fact the case
was not even a criminal case. It was an SC appeal on a civil case
wherein a schoolboard's sovereign immunity against civil penalties was
held inviolable.

The finding opens with the preamble:

"MR. JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court. This case
presents questions concerning the use of corporal punishment in public
schools: First, whether the paddling of students as a means of
maintaining school discipline constitutes cruel and unusual punishment
in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and, second, to the extent that
paddling is constitutionally permissible, whether the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires prior notice and an
opportunity to be heard. "

I suppose if one really stretched, as you silly Vine, are wont to do,
one could take that last sentence out of context...something else you
prospank mindless twits seem to do a good deal of....you could assume
a universal application, but this was about schools and schools only
or the good justices would have said so...the words "parent" and
"family" would have popped up someplace in the finding.

A [find] on the document at the cite I've included shows no such
connection to parental use of CP.

So, if you have other information about Ingraham v Wright that weighs
on a parent's right to use CP let us know. With some proper citations
if you please.

Oh, and it wouldn't hurt to find some support for your subject
line...sigh once again:

"Judges presume fit parents act in child's best interests."

How is it they didn't mention parents, fit or otherwise, anywhere in
the finding?

Let me presume you haven't really read it all carefully. I believe
this law school copy is full and complete...read it, as you and a
spanking enthusiasts may one day be in for a rude shock...it in fact
makes the role of CPS...an enforcement agency...part of the protection
of a child against unreasonable punishment..so deary, all the
anti-spank folks really have to do to put a stop to your stupidity and
cruelty is get "spanking" recognized as unreasonable.

I'm against a law as a cure. I'd like to think my own country was
somewhere out in front, as it used to be, in matters of child
protection, and we could grow up and treat children with respect,
instead of like savages.

Continued insistence on your stupid themes of "spanking is not
hitting," "a child who isn't spanked isn't loved" and similar nonsense
is going to bring about a change in law, whereas if you would
voluntarily wake up and put the brakes on this evil cruel practice the
law could be held at bay.

Read and heed:

http://www.faculty.piercelaw.edu/red...e-ingraham.htm

Kane

The case is on point.

(Kane) wrote in message . com...

On 02 Jan 2004 16:35:43 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

The case is on point.

Then you can "point" to the support of that claim.

I offered the finding itself for folks to peruse at their discretion.
You offer the babblings of a Plant.

So, anything, Ficus Benjaminea?

I find it interesting that you would give a five word response and
DELETE my response (see below...where I've reconstituted it in this
message) to your original post.

Apparently you can't stand the heat.

But that's typical of Mushrooms.

Once more we are treated to the constant misleading, manipulative,
logically faulty Manure you spread.

Kane


On 02 Jan 2004 14:57:10 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

One of the most fundamental tenents of family law, one that has been
acted upon
by numerous Supreme Court decisions upholding such thoughts---is that
fit
parents are presumed to act in a child's best interests.

Please include citations when you make such claims.

So spanking cannot be criminalized,

But it has in many public schools, now hasn't it? And are not public
schools acting in loco parentis? Hmmmm?

lest the Courts have to assume care,
custody and control of all minor children who may have been
physically touched
by parental caregivers.

In fact you just described exactly what society demands of itself.
Otherwise parents could abuse and even murder their children with no
compunction or consequences.

What kind of a country would we live in when Courts, not family,
presume to
determine what is in a child's best interests?

A country where children have the same right to safety that adults do.

Spanking totally legal in the US. By USSC holding.

Odd, I did not find that result..unless you are referring to something
other than.......

Ingraham v Wright

You've trotted this out before and I've corrected you before. Are you
therefore incapable of learning?

Possibly you haven't read some of the analysis so have schools
confused with parents.

http://www.corpun.com/usscr5.htm

If you read the finding:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj.../ingraham.html

YOu will find NO mention of parents whatsoever. And in fact the case
was not even a criminal case. It was an SC appeal on a civil case
wherein a schoolboard's sovereign immunity against civil penalties was
held inviolable.

The finding opens with the preamble:

"MR. JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court. This case
presents questions concerning the use of corporal punishment in public
schools: First, whether the paddling of students as a means of
maintaining school discipline constitutes cruel and unusual punishment
in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and, second, to the extent that
paddling is constitutionally permissible, whether the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires prior notice and an
opportunity to be heard. "

I suppose if one really stretched, as you silly Vine, are wont to do,
one could take that last sentence out of context...something else you
prospank mindless twits seem to do a good deal of....you could assume
a universal application, but this was about schools and schools only
or the good justices would have said so...the words "parent" and
"family" would have popped up someplace in the finding.

A [find] on the document at the cite I've included shows no such
connection to parental use of CP.

So, if you have other information about Ingraham v Wright that weighs
on a parent's right to use CP let us know. With some proper citations
if you please.

Oh, and it wouldn't hurt to find some support for your subject
line...sigh once again:

"Judges presume fit parents act in child's best interests."

How is it they didn't mention parents, fit or otherwise, anywhere in
the finding?

Let me presume you haven't really read it all carefully. I believe
this law school copy is full and complete...read it, as you and a
spanking enthusiasts may one day be in for a rude shock...it in fact
makes the role of CPS...an enforcement agency...part of the protection
of a child against unreasonable punishment..so deary, all the
anti-spank folks really have to do to put a stop to your stupidity and
cruelty is get "spanking" recognized as unreasonable.

I'm against a law as a cure. I'd like to think my own country was
somewhere out in front, as it used to be, in matters of child
protection, and we could grow up and treat children with respect,
instead of like savages.

Continued insistence on your stupid themes of "spanking is not
hitting," "a child who isn't spanked isn't loved" and similar nonsense
is going to bring about a change in law, whereas if you would
voluntarily wake up and put the brakes on this evil cruel practice the
law could be held at bay.

Read and heed:

http://www.faculty.piercelaw.edu/red...e-ingraham.htm

Kane