RE: APFN UPDATE: (USA) Family loses custody of overweight girl
ATTN: APFN LEGAL AND MEDIA NETWORKS:
Monday, 28-Aug-2000 21:48:25
8/28/00 18:45 PM - AZ
I just spoke Adela Martinez (Mother) 505-254-9170
APFN: "Do you want you daughter back"?
1) ADELA, does not know where her daughter is?
2) ADELA, has no contact as to find out where her daughter is!
3) ADELA, is requesting legal advise/assistance.
4) Contact is being established with her (Adela's) mother Marget 505-980-8852
for email contact & additional background.
(THIS APPEARS TO BE A CELLUAR NUMBER, JUST LEFT MESSAGE)
(APFN ADVISORS CONTACT AS REQUIRED IF YOU CAN ASSIST/ADIVISE/REPORT)
She has contacted Cong. Heather Wilson, but received no assistance
(Have not verified with Ms. Wilson at this time, but will!)
She requesting anyones assistance, most needs Legal advise, but is willing
to talk with media and radio talk shows for assistance.
More updates when available -- APFN@apfn.org
APFN LEGAL ADVISORS, PLEASE BE IN CONTACT ADELA DIRECTLY AT ABOVE NUMBER IF
YOU CAN OFFER ANY LEGAL ADVISE/ASSISTANCE AND/OR WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HER AS A
GUEST ON TALK RADIO. SHE SAID SHE WOULD, BUT I DON'T THINK SHE HAS BEEN ON RADIO
BEFORE, AT THIS TIME. THIS IS EVERY AMERICANS CONCERN! GOVT. STEALING YOUR CHILD!
(USA) Family loses custody of overweight girl
Monday, 28-Aug-2000 14:09:12
Family loses custody of overweight girl
The parents of a three-year-old American girl who weighs
eight-and-a-half-stone say they have lost custody of their
child because they could not control her weight.
Miguel Regino and Adela Martinez say authorities in New
Mexico took their daughter, Anamarie Martinez-Regino,
after a doctor claimed the child's condition was
"They dragged her out of the room kicking and screaming,"
a grieving Mrs Martinez said after her daughter was taken
from Presbyterian Hospital on Friday. "All she's known her
whole life is me, Miguel, my mother, the family. She was
Anamarie weighs 54 kilos and is 3ft 6ins tall - three times
heavier and 50% taller than an average three-year-old,
according to the girl's doctor, Monika Mahal, who made the
recommendation that she be removed from her parents
Irene Moody, a colleague of Dr Mahal who has examined
Anamarie, said the decision was taken in the best interest
of the child.
Anamarie has been in and out of the hospital since she
was two months old over her weight problem, but doctors
have not been able to determine a cause.
No state agency or law enforcement office has accused
the family with anything improper in the treatment of
Anamarie, Mrs Martinez said. But legal papers she
received on Friday charged the family with not being able
to keep the child's weight down.
"I can't believe that's what they're thinking," Mrs Martinez
said. "How can I make her body grow the way it has? It's
back to blaming us."
Dan Hill, a spokesman for the Children, Youth and
Families Department, said it is against state law for the
department's officials to comment on an open case.
Mrs Martinez has been told she will be allowed to visit her
daughter but doesn't know when. A custody hearing has
been set for September 5.
Call further inforamtion:
Presbyterian Hospital - 505-841-1234
Dr. Monika Mahal - 505-265-7817
[APFN NOTE] - I called the Presbyterian Hospital (505) 841-1234, they had
no commit but did give me the number of Dr. Monika Mahal 505-265-7817, I
spoke with Mary Ellen, she wanted to know who I was and my telephone
and fax number, which I gave her. I asked about the above report and
she said "None of your business" and hung up on me.
Sounds like a thyroid/pituatary problem to me. Bastards!!!
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: (USA) Family loses custody of overweight girl
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:16:45 -0400
From: "Bob1776" <Bob1776@modempool.com>
Constitutional Protection for Parental Rights
The Meyer-Pierce Legacy
Robert P. George and Jana V.T. Baldwin
[T]he custody, care and nurture of the child [should] reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.1
The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.2
For the last several decades, a significant amount of social and legal commentary has focused on the relationship of parent to child and the family to the state. As the economic and political life of America has changed profoundly over the years, family law has correspondingly undergone a host of changes. Today, as a result of the crisis confronting the American family, a scholarly, legal and public debate rages over family policy.3
"Children's Rights" advocates argue that children should have, and the state should recognize, greater autonomy from their parents in deciding how to live. Indeed, some scholars and activists argue for the liberation of children from their parents control as part of a larger attack on the
institution of the nuclear family.4
Against this backdrop, the Constitution limits the use of state power to diminish parental rights and undermine the family. Although the Constitution
does not deal explicitly with parental authority, the Supreme Court has specifically recognized parental rights of custody and control. In the landmark decision of Meyer v. Nebraska,5 closely followed by Pierce v. Society of Sisters,6 the Court stated that parents have a substantive due process right to "bring up children."7 Although these cases were handed down in the 1920s they are no mere archaisms, but rather have withstood the test of time. Indeed, Justice Brennan has remarked of Meyer and its progeny: "I think I am safe in saying that no one doubts the wisdom or validity of those decisions."8 The precedents Meyer and Pierce generated have further solidified the principle that parents should have the predominant role in raising their children.
In Meyer,9 the Supreme Court held that the right of parents to raise their children free from unreasonable state interferences is one of the unwritten "liberties" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
The Court invalidated a state statute prohibiting foreign language instruction to school children, recognizing the right of German-speaking parents to have their children taught German. The Court
found that the state's interest in encouraging American ideals by prohibiting the teaching of foreign languages is not great enough to permit infringement of the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit.11 The Court rested its opinion in large part on the rights of parents
to control the activities of their children,12 concluding that the statute was an interference "...with the power of parents to control the education of their own."13
Two years after Meyer, the Supreme Court in Pierce14 invalidated an Oregon statute requiring parents to send their children to public school, holding
that the statute "unreasonably interfere[d] with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control."15 Pierce made clear that the constitutional rights of a parent are
not limited to physical custody, but that parents possess the right to direct their child's "destiny."16
The principle enunciated by Meyer and Pierce, that parents have the right to direct the upbringing and education of their children, has survived the
many turbulent changes of the last several decades. A line of decisions following Meyer and Pierce further cemented the rights of parents to exercise their own best judgment in raising their children. For example, twenty years after Pierce, the Supreme Court in Prince v. Massachusetts17
stated that "[i]t is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder."18
Meyer also helped undergird the Supreme Court's decision in Parham v. J.R.19 In Parham, the Supreme Court deferred to parents' wishes to place their child in a mental hospital, stating that "the law's concept of the
family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life's difficult decisions.20 The Court emphasized that simply "because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child or because it involves
risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state."21
More recently, in the prominent case of Santosky v. Kramer,22 the Supreme Court acknowledged that "freedom of personal choice in matters of family
life is a fundamental liberty" and stated that natural parents have a "fundamental liberty interest...in the care, custody, and management of their child."23 Similarly, in Bowen v. American Hospital Ass'n,24 the Supreme Court recognized "a presumption...that parents are the appropriate decisionmaker for their infants."25
The constitutional protection of parental rights recognized by the federal courts has been affirmed and enforced by state courts.26 The recent case of Alfonso v. Fernandez27 illustrates that the parental rights doctrine, while
viable, is under attack today. In Alfonso, parents of New York high school students challenged the New York School Board's condom distribution program, arguing, among other things, that the program unconstitutionally denied
parents the right to opt their children out of the distribution program. On December 30, 1993, a New York appeals court held that the New York Board of
Education's condom distribution program was illegal and unconstitutional absent a parental opt-out provision. Citing Meyer and Pierce, the court recognized that the petitioners enjoy a "well-recognized liberty interest in
rearing and educating their children in accord with their own views..." including "the right to regulate their children's sexual behavior as best they can..."28 The court determined that "no matter how laudable its purpose, by excluding parental involvement, the condom availability
component of the program impermissibly trespasse[d] on the petitioners' parents rights" by substituting the School Board's judgment for the petitioners' judgment without a compelling necessity.29
Alfonso demonstrates that the Constitution still stands as a staunch defender of parental rights. Alfonso and its parental rights predecessors such as Meyer and Pierce are rooted in the recognition that parents possess
the right "to direct the upbringing and education of children under theircontrol."30
Despite the firm constitutional basis for parental rights, traditional concepts of parental authority are under attack from private and public groups seeking to give the state greater control of the upbringing of children, as evidenced by the appeals in the Alfonso case. Opponents of
parental rights understand perfectly well the significance of Meyer and Pierce as obstacles to their agenda, and the need to undermine these precedents in order to achieve their goals.31
In accordance with the court's decision in Alfonso, the New York Board of Education voted to revise the condom distribution policy to permit parents or guardians of unemancipated students to opt their children out of the
distribution component of the program. The New York Civil Liberties Union ("NYCLU"), however, moved to intervene in the action for the purposes of
filing an appeal and People About Changing Education ("PACE") and the Coalition For the Homeless moved for leave to appear as amici curiae to argue in favor of reversing the court's ruling. These groups argued that
affording "parents or guardians an `absolute veto' over unemancipated minors [ability] to receive condoms [in school] impermissibly infringes on New York City public school students' [constitutional] rights."32 The court denied NYCLU's motion to intervene, and the NYCLU lost a subsequent appeal of that denial. The New York Bar Association and the New York State Attorney General
had also moved to appear as amici curiae in favor of the NYCLU's motion to intervene and in opposition to the court's ruling.
The relentless zeal with which the NYCLU (and even the State of New York, as represented by the New York Attorney General), sought to overturn the
court's ruling in Alfonso makes clear that the right of parents to make substantive choices regarding their children's education and moral upbringing remains in jeopardy.
In short, the protection of parental rights should not have to be achieved on a piecemeal basis through unpredictable and expensive court challenges. The constitutional mandate articulated by Meyer and its progeny is clear: The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children shall not be infringed.
Robert P. George is an Associate Professor of Politics at Princeton University, and a Presidential Appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. He is the author of Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public
Morality (Oxford University Press, 1993). Jana V.T. Baldwin was counsel for plaintiffs in Alfonso v. Fernandez, the December, 1993 decision which overturned New York City's condom distribution policy.
The views expressed in this memo are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of other organizations with whom they are affiliated.
1. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944).
2. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925).
3. For commentary discussing the difficulties facing today's family, see generally, Giving Children a Chance: The Case for More Effective National Policies, (George Miller ed., 1989); Sylvia Hewlett, When the Bough Breaks: The Cost of Neglecting Our Children (1991); Rebuilding the Nest: A New Commitment to the American Family (David Blankenhorn et al. eds., 1990).
4. See generally, Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, Hatching the Egg: A Child-Centered Perspective on Parent's Rights, 14 Cardozo L. Rev. 1747 (1993) (arguing that parents' rights, "as currently understood, undermine values of responsibility and mutuality necessary to children's welfare"); Katherine T. Bartlett, Rethinking Parenthood as an Exclusive Status: The Need for Legal Alternatives When the Premise of the Nuclear Family Has Failed,
70 Va. L. Rev. 879, 882 (1984) (challenging "the law's adherence to the exclusive view of parenthood when the premise of the nuclear family has failed").
5. 262 U.S. 390 (1923).
6. 268 U.S. 510 (1925).
7. Meyer, 262 U.S. at 399.
8. Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 142 (Brennan, J.
9. 262 U.S. 399 (1923).
10. Id. at 399 ("[T]he liberty [guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment] denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to...marry, establish a home and bring up children"). Conservative critics of the notion of substantive due process have observed that Meyer (and Pierce) is
defensible even if the substantive due process doctrine on which the Court relied is not. See, eg., Robert H. Bork, The Tempting of America (New York: Free Press, 1990), pp. 47-49.
11. Id. at 400-01.
13. Id. at 401.
14. 268 U.S. 510 (1925).
15. 268 U.S. at 534-35.
17. 321 U.S. 158 (1944).
18. Id. at 166.
19. 442 U.S. 584 (1979).
20. Id. at 602.
21. Id. at 603.
22. 455 U.S. 745 (1982).
23. Id. at 753.
24. 476 U.S. 610 (1986) (plurality opinion).
25. Id. at 628 n.13 (quoting President's Comm'n for the Study of Ethical problems in Medicine and Biomedical Behavior Research, Report, at 212-214 (1983)).
26. See, e.g., Hawk v. Hawk, 855 S.W.2d 573, 579 (Tenn. 1993) ("the reasoning of federal constitutional cases convince[s] us that parental rights constitute a fundamental liberty interest" under the Tennessee Constitution); Bailey v. Menzie, 542 N.E.2d
1015, 1019 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) ("we are fully cognizant of
parents' well settled right under the Fourteenth Amendment to raise their families generally as they see fit"); Olds v. Olds, 356 N.W.2d 571, 574 (Iowa 1984) ("the parenting right is a fundamental liberty interest that is protected against unwarranted state intrusion"); People v. Sheppard, 429 N.E.2d
1049, 1052 (N.Y. 1981) (it "is well settled that parents
generally have a right under the Fourteenth Amendment to raise their families as they see fit").
27. 606 N.Y.S.2d 259 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993).
28. Id. at 265.
30. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 233 (1972); Meyer, 262
U.S. 390, 401 (1923).
31. See, e.g., Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, "Who Owns the Child?
Meyer and Pierce and the Child as Property" 33 William and Mary Law Review, 995 (1992)
32. Brief Amici Curiae of People About Changing Education (PACE) and the Coalition for the Homeless at p. 13.
. For commentary discussing the difficulties facing today's
family, see generally, Giving Children a Chance: The Case for More Effective National Policies, (George Miller ed., 1989);
Sylvia Hewlett, When the Bough Breaks: The Cost of Neglecting Our Children (1991); Rebuilding the Nest: A New Commitment to the American Family (David Blankenhorn et al. eds., 1990).
. See generally, Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, Hatching the Egg: A Child-Centered Perspective on Parent's Rights, 14 Cardozo L.
Rev. 1747 (1993) (arguing that parents' rights, "as currently understood, undermine values of responsibility and mutuality necessary to children's welfare"); Katherine T. Bartlett,
Rethinking Parenthood as an Exclusive Status: The Need for Legal Alternatives When the Premise of the Nuclear Family Has Failed,
70 Va. L. Rev. 879, 882 (1984) (challenging "the law's adherence to the exclusive view of parenthood when the premise of the nuclear family has failed").
. 262 U.S. 390 (1923).
THIS HAS FAR REACHING IMPLICATIONS OF GOVERMENT "FOR THE CHILDREN" POLICIES!
SEE ADDITIONAL POSTINGS FROM APFN NETWORK AT:
Let us pray.... "The Priest"
Messages From on High - "I am the Way to a True Life in Me"
Title: "When I call, will you follow? If you follow, do you heed My Truth?"
Notebook 61, pp. 113--115
Live + Jesus
St. Bartholomew, August 24, 2000
Dear Jesus and Holy Mother,
O humanity! Do you not hear Me calling out to you in Truth? Do you not see
My Extended Hand inviting you to the Very Depths of Truth? Why must you
look the other way? Why do you shun yourself from Me? .....Yet.....I wait.
When I call, will you answer? When I urge, will you move? When I present
Myself to you, will you turn away? Or will you follow?
Glory and Praise is reserved for you Here in My Heaven.....My Glory visible
for you.....My Glory given to you, for you to behold. And Praise shall be ever on
your lips. Yes.....I have reserved all of this for you. Yet...I grant it even now!
Come forth, all people! Look and see the Beauty of My Church! Look beyond
your human vision and see Me Here! See Truth! See Me, Who is Truth!
Humanity can often steer you in the wrong direction. But My Church is in the
Life and Breath and crystalline Presence of God! My Spirit dwells Here! Come
forth, in pure heart to see the Beauty Here!
When I call, will you follow? If you follow, do you heed My Truth? Are you a
promoter of My Truth? Do you defend this Inheritance which I have given to
you? Are you willing to recognize Me in your midst? Are you willing to bow to
My Authority? I am Here in My Church. I am Here in you. Come......let us go
off and be together. Let us be One. Amen. +
(Rev. 21:9-14; Ps. 145:10-13, 17-18; Jn. 1:45-51)
With Love, in the Two Hearts,
.....More terror in America!
CHRISTIANITY UNDER SIEGE, TOWARD A ONE WORLD RELIGION
Justice Taken Too Far
"In the beginning of a change, The Patriot is a scarce man,
brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however,
the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
-- Mark Twain
"If you suppress the truth it becomes your enemy....
if you expose the truth it becomes your weapon"...
--- Col Phillip Corso
APFN CONTACT INFO & MESSAGE BOARD:
PLEASE FORWARD/NETWORK COMPLETE MESSAGE
Back to (USA) Family loses custody of overweight girl
More Terror in America
American Patriot Friends Network
"... a network of net workers..."
APFN IS NOT A BUSINESS
APFN IS SUPPORTED BY "FREE WILL" GIFT/DONATIONS
Without Justice, there is JUST_US!
APFN Message Board
APFN Contents Page
APFN Home Page
Last updated 08/05/2010