Testimony
State of Hawaii
House of Representatives
26th Legislature, 2011
House Resolution 155 and House Concurrent Resolution 179 (HR155, HCR179) purport to affirm a “parental rights” amendment to United States Constitution. However, Hawaii representatives should pay attention to the details of the resolutions and the hidden agenda they bring.
HR155 and HCR 179 initially focus on children’s education and the right of parents to choose a child’s education. The resolutions endorse the United States Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin vs. Yoder finding that Amish children could not be placed in compulsory education without violating parent’s freedom of religion. The decision upholds the respect our Constitution has for the separation of church and state regardless whether the strict religious principles are in the best interests of the child.
In contrast, the resolutions dismiss the nuanced wisdom of the United States Supreme Court decision in Troxel vs. Granville wherein the court held 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.”
Troxel does not limit parental rights to six different opinions as purported by the proposed resolutions, rather, it is much broader in scope and far more affirmative of parental rights than Yoder.
The resolutions also purport that Troxel creates confusion and ambiguity about the fundamental nature of parental rights declared in the case. Yet the Troxel decision stands because it has unequivocably established that “the custody, care and nuture of the child reside first in the parents.”
Thus, the proposed Constitutional amendment appears to oppose it’s stated purpose. What, then, could be the purpose of the amendment?
It is important to consider that the resolutions cite a version of the amendment proposed by U.S. Congress member Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) who first made headlines by announcing that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. Since no such weapons were actually found, the incident is revealing in that the Congressman may not be the best source for a Constitutional amendment. Rep Hoekstra’s amendment purports to prevent the erosion of parental rights by taking away the non-discriminatory parenting rights confirmed in the Troxel case and replacing it with rights of religious freedom in the Yoder case.
In today’s society of mixed, blended, and multiple families, the amendment does nothing to clarify what is a parent. At the same time, it would increase the power of parents to protect religious practices that may not be in the best interests of families or children.
In our courts, the resolutions would entrench the much maligned tradition of granting parental rights to a “custodial parent” where the other parent becomes no more than a visitor in his or her children’s lives. Conflict in our adversarial family court system would be sure to increase as parents use the amendment to assert religion over the best interests of the child.
Hawaii would do better, instead, to consider a bill similar to South Dakota’s House Bill 1255 (Argus Leader, 2/16/11). This “Shared Parenting” bill would allow Hawaii to enter the 21st Century where divorce may be deemed, when appropriate, a legal manuever for power and control of the children in a relationship. Such a bill would protect our children far better than the proposed Constitutional amendment.
In a global context, the proposal is xenophobic. The proposed resolutions would prevent us from interpreting emerging data in the nascent science of parental rights. In the presence of world-wide phenomena, such as parental alienation and parental abuduction, such an amendment would prevent us from forming laws that are truly in the best interests of the children.
Further, the dogmatic form of the proposed resolutions would undermine the Supreme Court’s insistence on parental rights and defer those rights to religious organizations. We would simply substitute religious governance for governance of, by and for the people.
If we ignore the powerful religions that would control our government, we would be ignoring a creeping, irrational fundamentalism. Religions and the families of religious institutions can be better protected without this Constitutional amendment.
If we ignore the ever-expanding data on families, we would ignore a better world where families can be confident of choices they make for their children. Without this amendment, we can be assured that families–not religions–provide their sons and daughters with the best possible upbringing.
Yoder is a good case that protects religious freedom within families, but it is not appropriate for asserting unqualified parental rights that may increase the chance that our keiki may be abused and that their abusers will be protected.
Troxel is a United States Supreme Court case with fundamental human rights at its very core. Troxel argues, in effect, for a presumption of equally shared parenting that respects the rights of both parents to raise the child and respects the right of the child to be raised by both parents.
As proposed, these resolutions are not in the best interests of our keiki.
Please do not support HCR 179 or HR 155 as proposed. These resolutions are against our best interests; for our keiki, for our families, for our Hawaii, for our United States, and for the world in which we live.
On the web:
Argus Leader
Pete Hoekstra, (R-MI)(Wikipedia)
Troxel (Wikipedia)
Yoder (Wikipedia)
HCR179
HR155
Hearing Announcement
Hawaii Reporter for HR155, HCR179
LiveBeatDad.com