2013 Indiana Senate Bill 332 Parental Rights - Legislation Part 10

A longstanding principle in the Unites States is that of unalienable rights. The rights that we possess for no other reason than being people. The courts have provided interpretation and direction as to the extent of these liberties and the limits upon which government may subjugate or infringe upon those.

Senate Bill 0332 affects the following citations: IC 31-10-2-2.The synopsis is as follows:
Parental rights. Provides that the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their child is a fundamental right. Provides that Indiana law shall be administered, implemented, and interpreted consistently with this right. Provides that an Indiana governmental entity may not burden this right unless the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

The United States Supreme Court has articulated that a parent’s interests in raising his or her children is “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests,” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000), and the Indiana Supreme Court has described it as “one of the most valued relationships in our culture,” Bester, 839 N.E.2d at 147 (quoting Neal v. DeKalb County Div. of Family & Children, 796 N.E.2d 280, 285 (Ind. 2003)). The bill proposed by Senator Kruse adopts common caselaw language related to government intrusions into the personal lives of the citizenry such as “compelling governmental interest” and “least restrictive means” and moves it into the statutory child custody scheme.

The particular text of the bill is as follows: “Indiana law shall be administered, implemented, and interpreted consistently with this section. The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their child is a fundamental right. A governmental entity may not burden a person's right described in subsection (c) unless the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person furthers a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

It should be this way. Even in consideration of my vast experience, research, observation and knowledge of the realm of issues related to overall child well-being I still do not feel that I am in a position to direct others as to how to raise their children. I make recommendations, I provide input and guidance to policy makers, I express my disagreement when I see child rearing techniques used that I feel are not best practices. But, in the end, the reality is that I do not know what is best for any child in any particular circumstance. The world has no certainties but is controlled only by possibilities and probabilities. I certainly don't want the government intruding into my family life absent near certainty that my actions would surely result in harm and I don't want it done to anyone else on my behalf.

Reproduction is an experiment. The scientific community knows not to limit experiment to only hypothesis with probable affirmative results because it is the improbable that may just as well produce the most significant advancement. While children may not be lab rats a historical analysis of past “best practices” reveals that man has collectively “known” far less than he surely has.

State actors, emboldened with the authority of the state and imbued by title or rank may become overzealous in their well meaning attempts at doing what is best for the children. However, they may need a check on their intentions which could just be a parent, not savvy in legal research and caselaw analysis, challenging them with the language that Senator Kruse proposes to arm them with. While the state may come armed with what seems like unlimited resources to impose action upon a parent or family that often lacks resources this bill could provide them with just the armament they need to remain a family -- “compelling governmental interest” and “least restrictive means”.

If you need assistance with a CPS case or any other action that threatens your parental rights then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me.

If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.

Subscribe to this blawg.

More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.

©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.