First, let me ask that we keep things civil and prevent this from devolving in to a left vs. right-fox-news-and-HITLER discussion.
Quote:
School district commits 6-year-old after he pens violent drawing
Syndi Dorman has faced a lot, raising two kids while her Army husband spent time overseas. But what happened a few days ago was right up there with her worst nightmare.
"I said, 'Can you do this?' and they're like, 'Yeah,'" said the stunned San Pedro mother. "I'm just like, 'What? Can I get a lawyer? How is this happening?'"
Dorman said what happened to her son could happen to any school-age child and that's why she's speaking out. On Monday, her 6-year-old son Jack was committed to a psychiatric ward against her wishes after he drew a violent drawing at school and wrote that he wanted to die.
"They said they were concerned about a picture he drew. I said he plays video games and it's a picture from a video game."
Dorman said her son suffers from separation anxiety and has seen a therapist in the past. On the day he drew the disturbing picture, he was upset that he couldn't stay home with his family.
"I explained to them what was happening, that my husband was being deployed to Iraq, that he was upset when he came to school today, that he wanted to be home."
School officials at Taper Avenue Elementary in San Pedro were so concerned, they called a Los Angeles County psychiatric mobile response team, which determined Jack needed to be committed to a 72-hour psychiatric hold at a local hospital.
"I'm saying, 'I will deal with it, that we have a therapist, we'll make sure he's seen today.' "They said it was out of my hands. They said they were in control and they could do this and had already called an ambulance."
Dorman said the ambulance ride was traumatizing for her son.
"I was trying to reassure him it would be OK and he asked if I'd come back for him, and I said of course I'm going to come back for you."
Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent Ramon Cortines released a statement, saying in part, "When any student indicates a desire to take his or her own life, the LAUSD is required to follow strict protocols to ensure the safety of the student ... The safety of LAUSD students is paramount. We did the right thing here."
Jack was released after 48 hours, but his mother says the experience will have lasting effects.
"My son doesn't want to go back to school. He's afraid they're going to take him away again."
|
Mom upset after school sends son to psych ward - Health - Mental health - msnbc.com
See Also:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Justice McReynolds
The established doctrine is that liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting the public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State to effect.
|
Under Constitutional law, states have a 'police power' to define what is right and wrong and basically ensure the safety of its citizens. In the past, cases of child neglect resulting in death of the child have spurred legislators to create child protection and social work agencies to safeguard the children.
However, the issue arises when state workers seek to define *how* a child should be raised, and what is and is not *unacceptable.* This runs up against a line of cases which give parents broad latitude in how to raise their child. See for example,
Meyer v. Nebraska, Troxel v. Granville, Wisconsin v. Yoder. In contrast, the Supreme Court HAS permitted state intervention on how a parent may raise their child in
Prince v. Massachusetts, where the court held that a 'parent' could not stand on the street corner and proselytize with their child since the child is of "a tender age and places the child in situations difficult enough for adults to cope with and wholly inappropriate for children."
================================================
My concern arises in that child protection agencies seem to target the poor.
In a frontline report, we see where a fresh faced Bachelor Degree'd 20 something year old badgers a poor and economically destitute woman in to accepting all sorts of counseling under threat of taking their child away. In addition, these workers spout of theories of 'psychological damage' which frankly are unsupported.
frontline: failure to protect: caseworker files: three cases | PBS
You also see cases where an abusive, alcoholic father has his child taken away--yet the child and the father really love each other and want to be together.
Yet, the state should not sit idly by and let children fall victim to their neglectful parents who don't feed them and cause children to die hunger, or worse, physical abuse.
===========================
Where should states draw the line between overstepping their bounds to interfere with a parents right to raise their own children? When is it proper for the state to take away a child for their safety?
Discuss.
(I personally am libertarian and do not like states imposing what they perceive as an unhealthy environment on people who choose to live alternative lifestyles. The Supreme Court's Meyer v. Nebraska decision seems to support pluralism, of which I am a fan. This nation thrives on a market of ideas, and that market should support pluralistic notions.)