California Moves Toward Giving Therapists Unconditional Power To 'Emancipate' 12 Year Olds From Thei

[mystery-ak]

California Moves Toward Giving Therapists Unconditional Power To 'Emancipate' 12 Year Olds From Their Parents


Susannah Luthi   
June 22, 2023

California Democrats on Tuesday advanced legislation to let mental health professionals remove children from their homes and place them in state custody without parental consent.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved Assembly Bill 665 on a party-line vote. The bill would allow poor children as young as age 12 to check into state-run youth shelters on the unconditional say-so of a therapist or counselor.

Ahead of the vote, dozens of Californians passionately testified against the bill, variously condemning it as "emancipation of 12 year olds," "heinous," and "dangerous." But the bill's authors dismissed the concerns as "misinformation" and "lies."

The bill's advance is the latest victory in a campaign by California Democrats to roll back parental rights, often in the name of allowing minors to choose their own gender. Other legislation making its way through the legislature would punish parents and foster parents who do not "affirm" children's transgender identity.

more
https://freebeacon.com/california/california-assembly-bill-665/

[Kamaji]

The better to impose marxist indoctrination on the young.

[PeteS in CA]

Wisconsin vs. Yoder.

[Kamaji]

Wisconsin vs. Yoder.

I'm not quite sure Yoder would forestall this sort of nonsense.

[PeteS in CA]

I'm not quite sure Yoder would forestall this sort of nonsense.

Wisconsin vs. Yoder and Pierce vs. Society of Sisters require government to assume that generally parents act in the best interests of their child(ren) and to defer to parents.

[Kamaji]

Wisconsin vs. Yoder and Pierce vs. Society of Sisters require government to assume that generally parents act in the best interests of their child(ren) and to defer to parents.

Not necessarily.  Each case was premised, in part, on the assumption that the children's religious beliefs were consonant with their parents' beliefs, and that the children could not be forced to undergo a public education that was inconsistent with their deeply-held religious beliefs.

That assumption doesn't hold under the circumstances the statute addresses, because it establishes that the child has an interest that is at variance with the parents' interest.

As such, while Society of Sisters is a stronger precedent for the general proposition that government should defer to parents, I think it will be persuasive at best.