Membership Scenarios FEEDBACK

Thoughts on full Membership scenarios are welcome!

Let me say that again, [b]Your thoughts on Membership scenarios are welcome![/b] This is probably one of the more important BLOGs at the site. The scenarios on our [url=http://member.php4]member page[/url] try to put real world examples against general beliefs about 'rights'. They are meant to be controversial and to use borderline cases that will hopefully make us all think. I encourage you to make your opinions know below. [b]PLEASE[/b], [i]this is not a TEST. The Members of NationalPLC are not saying we are RIGHT and you are wrong![/i] Good, intelligent, and loving parents can disagree on the response to the questions presented. But, for Members of the NationalPLC group, our common shared answers define who we are and what we stand for -- [i]both to ourselves and to others.[/i]

BOTH parents have a right to know about a child.

[b]Every parent has a RIGHT to now they have a child.[/b] It seems like such a simple thing. It get's rid of all the 'excuses' legislators have about not supporting equal parenting legislation. It asks a basic question, [i]"Without knowledge I can't even start the legal process to be a parent to my child. Don't I have a basic right to know I have a child?"[/i] Obviously, in almost all cases a mother knows she is going to be parent and this Act hopes to bring equality to fathers; however, as science advances we may soon find the ability to take an 'egg' and bring it to term -- and perhaps ignore the biological mother. [url=http://www.akidsright.org/parental_notification/]This link[/url] has more details on this proposed legislation.

We are presumed to be FIT & EQUAL parents.

[b]We are presumed to be FIT & EQUAL parents.[/b] If anyone (a spouse, relative, or Child Protective "services") wishes to challenge that, you have a right to speedy trial, counsel, and the protection of a criminal jury and a unanimous verdict. The "state" needs to prove you were a demonstrated serious and intentional threat to your child's safety and acted with malintent. Why? Because it is such a fundamental right, check this link for an [url=http://www.akidsright.org/civil_rights_essay.htm]Essay on Parental Rights.[/url]

What about drinking, hitting, drugging!

These seem to become very important issues in these politically correct times.��That an incident such as these defines your basic moral worth as an individual [b]- NOT![/b] Wanting to interfere with the parent child bond here gets into percentages, [i]"Well, something worse might happen!"[/i]��Yes, it might, and in a small percentage of the cases.��[i]But EVERYTIME we interfere with a parent child bond -- we deny rights and abuse the parent and child [/i]-- we only hope that amount of abuse is justified by what we hope to prevent! If actions like drinking, hitting, and drugging are crimes -- punish the offender as we do for everything else.��If they are in jail/in-house treatment, their time with the kids is limited.��But don't interfere otherwise. [i]Also, what about the 'evil' white collar crimes -- the people that rob pension funds, scam senior citizens -- should we limit their contact with their kids?��Can you believe some people cheat on their Taxes!��Take their kid's away![/i] -- [b]Please, those statements are sarcasm, but could become truth if we don't begin to value family rights![/b]

This really would be BEST for the child!

This is a tough one, but none of has a right to what is BEST for us, or to expect that from anyone, friend or family. Yes, we would all like that to happen, [i]but when you say 'right', you are talking about something that should be enforced....[/i] Family relationships are special, they grow and change over time. Mistakes happen and we can learn from them. To allow the 'state' to impose its determination of what is BEST is a gross intrusion. As we each review our own lives, I didn't always get what was BEST for me from my parents -- but I would not trade that for the decision of a Judge, School Counselor, or Psychologist....

Child has strong preference for one parent.

The exercise of rights also means the exercise of responsibility. That is why we are hesitant to speak about children's rights (other than having BOTH parents involved in their lives). Children don't pick their parents, mom and dad made that decision. [i]The very idea that a government sponsored official should approach a child and ask, "Mary, who do you love more? Who do you want to be with more? Mom or Dad?" -- should make us all uncomfortable.[/i] To even let a child think they can exercise that type of control (especially a teenager!). Like many issues of family, it all depends on WHEN this might be asked. I can see myself answering it in different ways as I grew older... It is also one of the most deadly and poisoning things in a separation -- it is all too easy and natural for one parent to encourage the child to share bad feelings about the other parent....

High conflict divorce - let the mediator decide!

Mediation is a great thing and it makes a tremendous amount of sense as the preferred resolution mechanism in family matters. [b]In most cases the 'best mediator' may just be a friend offering common sense advice.[/b] But the key point to real success, is two EQUAL parties and not a FORCED agreement. Right now legislated mediation does not work as well as it should because of those two principles. [i]Many people are surprised that we would say the 'default' living arrangement should be alternating weeks with both parents -- period. No special rules for vacations, birthdays, age, etc....[/i] This may not result in a starting schedule that some might consider 'best' for the child and parents -- but it is up to them. Once there is no power struggle the parent's can then work it out between themselves or [i]turn to mediation for help[/i]. It would be much more effective.

Good Parent v. Poor Parent - who should win?

Again, we have a [url=http://www.nationalPLC.org/]simple list of basic Family Rights[/url] that most folks would agree with. But what that really says is: Good, average, and poor parents are all FIT & EQUAL parents. The only people we wish to NOT protect are the BAD parent -- someone who is intentionally trying to harm their child, to cause the end of the relationship.... When we look at the [fat/tv/don't care] parent vs the [trim/involved/engaged] parent scenario -- let's try to remember these facts are true only for a [i]moment in time.[/i] People do change and one the most powerful forces for change in a parent's life is their interaction with their children. I think every parent has experienced that at some point. [i]What about the kids? Well, they get to see the impact they can have on a parent. And how 'adults' can sometimes succeed or be overwhelmed by what life throws at them. But we still try to love and to care as we are able....[/i]

Leave sleeping child in car for 5 minutes!!!!

Most people seems to agree with the basic family rights we propose: [i]that you are presumed FIT unless convicted by a jury in a criminal court of causing serious harm to your child with malintent[/i] -- but this one bothers most of us at first glance. Perhaps it's because of the insecurity we feel in society, or the stories about kid's being forgotten all day in a hot car. Some people were concerned about how old the child was? 15 was okay, 1 was not okay, 4 was not okay -- but what about 8 or 9 or 13? Pretty arbitrary line at some point? In 99.9% of these incidents, NOTHING happens -- except the kid stays asleep and a little less stress for the parent (usually a win-win). CLearly, there was no malintent to even attempt to harm the child. I see parent's do silly stuff all the time that 'could' result in an accident/injury to their kids [i](letting little toddlers stand up in shopping carts is my personal favorite - they ought to be arrested!)[/i]. But 'I' and 'we' are not the parents, and we accept that as family life. [b]Still concerned about the kid in the car?[/b] Then take the time to wait outside and keep watch. Try to have a little talk with parent when they come out of the store...... [i]what, too busy? don't want to get involved?[/i] Guess you don't really care about that child either?