Declaration Of Parental Rights: Fill & Download for Free

“Antonin Scalia once said "The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge." Which of his own did he personally dislike?”I like the examples given thus far—Texas v. Johnson, Employment Division v. Smith, and ABC v. Aereo.But one major one that the late Justice frequently mentioned in talks but which hasn’t been mentioned yet is Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).Washington State had a law allowing non-parents to petition a court for visitation rights over the parents’ objections, applying only the “best interests of the child” standard. The parents sued, alleging a “constitutional right” to direct and control their children’s upbringing, which was violated by the court being permitted to substitute its judgment of what was best for the child over the judgment of the parents, even with no showing that the parents were “unfit”.The Court held, in a divided 4–1–1–3 opinion (that is, 4 in the plurality, 2 solo concurrences, and 3 dissents), that such a right did exist, and that the visitation decisions of “fit” parents with regard to non-parents must be given “special weight”—which, in practice and subsequent cases, has turned out to mean almost total deference.In comes Antonin Scalia—very conservative, traditional Catholic, father of nine himself… he absolutely believed that parents should have almost total discretion in raising their children.But he was one of the dissenting opinions. He simply didn’t believe that the text of the Constitution justified the conclusion.In my view, the first paragraph of his dissent should be required reading for anyone who wishes to know the fundamental core of “constitutional conservatism”—read for yourself:In my view, a right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children is among the "unalienable Rights" with which the Declaration of Independence proclaims "all men ... are endowed by their Creator." And in my view that right is also among the "othe[r] [rights] retained by the people" which the Ninth Amendment says the Constitution's enumeration of rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage." The Declaration of Independence, however, is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution's refusal to "deny or disparage" other rights is far removed from affirming anyone of them, and even further removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges' list against laws duly enacted by the people. Consequently, while I would think it entirely compatible with the commitment to representative democracy set forth in the founding documents to argue, in legislative chambers or in electoral campaigns, that the State has no power to interfere with parents' authority over the rearing of their children, I do not believe that the power which the Constitution confers upon me as a judge entitles me to deny legal effect to laws that (in my view) infringe upon what is (in my view) that unenumerated right.—Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 91–92 (2000) (italics in original, bold is my emphasis)

Depends entirely on the libertarian.Many libertarians are happy to just exceptionalise parental obligations. That’s not necessarily a dodge - children are edge cases in lots of political philosophies. When I was a libertarian I just didn’t pay any heed to this particular problem.Others are explicit that the parental obligations that exist are merely negative in nature. Here’s Murray Rothbard (my emphasis - PH):Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive. (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such "neglect" down to a minimum.)Children and RightsPersonally I think that such a view is completely monstrous and that most libertarians will want to distance themselves from such thoughts, so that they’re not either laughed out of the room or thought to be evil.For a more intelligent and less monstrous treatment, you might see this post over at Bleeding Heart Libertarians, which is one of the better libertarian blogs out there:Parental Rights and the Obligation to Care - Bleeding Heart LibertariansIt argues that parents have obligations to care for their children, but these obligations are grounded in the exercise of parents rights (taking the child home from the hospital etc). Here’s Steve Horwitz:This way of thinking of the matter is wrong-headed. The parents’ obligation to care for the child isn’t about making an agreement with the child, and the lack of such an agreement with the child does not mean the parents have no obligations. The parental obligations come when parents engage in the positive act of treating the child as theirs by asserting their parental rights, and thereby accepting the corresponding obligations. This is most obvious with the legal acquisition of parental rights in adoption, but is no different when biological parents bring a child home from the hospital, or make other positive steps to exercise parental rights by treating the child as theirs. “Treating the child as theirs” is a kind of public declaration of the exercise of parental rights, and those rights come with corresponding responsibilities and obligations.You can think of taking a child home from the hospital as analogous to homesteading: you are declaring to others (not to the child) that this child is yours and that you thereby accept the responsibilities to care that come with exercising those parental rights. If you created that child and do not wish to care for it yourself, you have an obligation to arrange for its care by finding someone else who wants to acquire those rights.My question for libertarians would be to say that let’s suppose the parent does not exercise their parental rights. The mother gives birth to the child, and then leaves the hospital. The child remains in the hospital. Now, does anyone have a enforcible duty of care towards the child in that scenario? Can the hospital legitimately turf the newly born child out onto the street? The left-liberal answer is clear - the state has a duty of care towards all people and must exercise this duty of care if others (eg. parents) fail to do so. This duty of care is grounded in the child having basic rights.There’s some interesting discussion of this in the comments to the BHL article. Ultimately, I think the account offered by Horwitz fails, but it’s clearly an improvement on Rothbard!So yeah … three broad families of response:ignore itdeny that they exist. Theoretically the cleanest, but unsatisfyingtry to offer a libertarian theory of parental obligations that can incorporate most of our pre-philosophical intuitions (I think this is the right route for the libertarian to go down)

Imagining, i was from Economically weaker section (EWS) and had 2 sons, 1 big enough to work at a hospital that declared my 2nd son dead , handed his body over without documentation, kept him off ventilator for hours together — i would have asked my 1st kid(working in the same hospital) to arrange a protest demanding cancellation of the license of the hospital.I would join the protest if i came to know, the same hospital is a repeat offender in treating folks from EWS as a loose expendable change.We Indians are funny,indeed.On odd days, we visit private hospitals, sulk at the 2nd class treatment meted out to us despite paying a fortune in their fees, pray that the ‘system’ is straightened with an iron rod and heads roll.On even days, we jump on to Quora, devalue the preliminary report by a Government and label the actions of cancelling license of a repeat offender hospital — ‘harsh'.Am wondering, if not this, Just what exactly will be a good case to suspend the licences of a repeatedly erring hospital ?50 children of parents belonging to EWS , being falsely declared dead?100 children of parents belonging to EWS , being falsely declared dead?A Gorakhpur like tragedy where children continue to die even though the month of August is past us? Or,5 children of parents belonging to top politically connected families , being falsely declared dead? ANDCall from your favorite leader declaring the hospital - “Opposition Sponsored” , “Anti - National”, “Anti- this”, “Anti - that” ?Or Simply, private institutions,despite being repeat offenders are just too big to mess with in INDIA ?The argument of other innocent staff being penalized for no fault of their own, is an ‘emotional’ fallacy. Institutions are formed, brought up, live up and die like institutions - a wholesome group. If ‘innocent-staff-theory’ is to be applied everywhere then there is never ever a case where things are set right because institutions to save their necks will find scape goats and get absolved of all wrong -doings.