The Day I Met Michael Farris or On the Parental Rights Amendment

As Dad and I walked out of a recent homeschool conference, he looked at me, smiled, shook his head, and said, "Only you....only you".

My reply? "But of course!"

(The incident under discussion being my question to Michael Farris in the previous seminar, in which he had expressed support for the Parental Rights Amendment, and I piped up, asking whether or not such an amendment would protect child abusers, and why or why not?).

For those of you who don't know, Michael Farris founded Patrick Henry College and HSLDA, and is somewhat of a really big deal in the homeschooling community - yes, we have our own celebrities as well, thank you very much ;) However, when one is surrounded by homeschool parents, and happens to be the only young person in the room, perhaps asking about parental abuse may not be the most inconspicuous course of action! And with all the controversy surrounding such an amendment, advocates of homeschooling almost universally support such an amendment, and it is only those who are opposed to homeschooling who are seen criticizing it. Anyways. 

His reply entailed an explanation of the difference between a non-fundamental right, a fundamental right, and an absolute right. A non - fundamental right, he said, was one in which the individual must prove that no abuses of such a right has occurred. A fundamental right was one in which the burden of proof rest on the government / prosecution. Therefore, it is up to the government to prove decisively that an abuse of said right has occurred. And finally, an absolute right is one which is, well, absolute and gives complete control to the one in authority without outside interference, checks, or balances. 

The right of parents to homeschool, he said, was a fundamental right. Therefore, if the government has reason to believe that it is being abused, the responsibility is on the government to prove the guilt of the persons in question beyond a shadow of a doubt, as opposed to the burden of proving their innocence resting on the accused. 

However, it is not an absolute right. It is one which parents have been entrusted with fundamentally as a result of being parents of a child. Under no circumstances is abuse ever okay, but if there is concern that abuse may be happening, it is the responsibility of the government to prove it, making the parents innocent until proven guilty rather than guilty until proven innocent. 

Now, if you're like me, you can pick out the loopholes..most notably, where would this proof come from? The testimony of children who may not speak truthfully due to a deeply instilled fear of social workers/the government? Governmental inspection of households which are expert at appearing perfect on the outside to mask the horrors which occur behind closed doors? 

But...then again, there is the risk of that in any household. However, homeschooled children may be at greater risk of protecting abusers due to the rhetoric of homeschooling which teaches that speaking ill of one's family is a capital offense, and cutting the net that holds you. 

In all, I really don't know. In a perfect world, sure, but we don't live in a perfect world. There's bound to be troubles, and bound to be problems, but I suppose the way to avoid them isn't to automatically assume the worst of every parent. 

That's like prohibiting men and women from ever being alone with each other because you've automatically jumped to the most negative conclusion. 

Which isn't right. 

But on the other hand, do we care to risk being too trusting? 

Because, ultimately, if this ends up being a negative thing, the parent's aren't really the ones who will suffer the most. It will be the kids who are abused under the cover of protecting parental right.

And while I realize that abuse happens to public schooled kids as well, if a kid goes to school, they aren't at home for the majority of the day, therefore ideally they have a respite and can tell someone in order to get help. Homeschooled kids may or may not have that freedom.

*shrug*

I honestly haven't done a whole lot of research on this, and it seems to me that most pieces on this are opinion instead of fact (not that this is any better, but....) ;)

On this particular topic, I'm currently leaning towards being in favor of it under the condition that it's a fundamental and not an absolute right, and that parents and the government realize that as well.

I mean, kids live with their parents anyways, parents are the God-given caretakers of their children, and I don't see anything wrong with it in a perfect world, but unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world. I'm still sorting through my thoughts on this, but I suppose for now, that's about where I stand.

Thoughts?