Interesting find...So James Dwyer believes the State should decide whether or not to grant parental rights to anyone, period. http://archive.is/b2Yv1
Dwyer believes the arc of family law in general is moving in his direction. Family law is "becoming more child-centered and protective in order to avoid the social costs of harm to children. A great example is the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act, which requires states to authorize termination of parental rights in some cases before a child has been maltreated, based on a parent's proven propensity to abuse children. Thus, it is now theoretically possible to protect a newborn child who is born to unfit parents from ever being abused, by immediately terminating the rights of a birth parent who has previously done horrible things to other children, thereby freeing the baby for adoption by fit parents.
"As a practical matter, that is not much different from my proposal that states disqualify demonstrably unfit birth parents from ever becoming legal parents to a newborn child."
Does his concern for newborns exist 5 minutes before birth? An hour, a day, a week?
He does advocate putting babies born to incarcerated parents up for adoption, and he does not advocate the case for 'prison babies' being raised in prison nurseries and maybe this is what he's getting at, 'don't let convicted mothers have parental rights'. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/07/prison-born/395297/
But that specific debate is a far cry to the slippery slope of a blanket statement of having the State be the one to hold the inherent rights of 'state parenthood' if you will, only granting license to whatever adult they decide fits their view of who should be allowed to raise children and where.
2010
Dwyer's forthcoming article, "Zoning for Child Protection," focuses on the role neighborhood plays in child development and maltreatment. He contends "the state should zone some horrible residential areas 'no child zones' and remove children born into them. The legal system should require consideration of the community environment in which parents or potential parents live in any decision about children's lives. State legislatures should amend domestic relations and child protection laws to give explicit direction that neighborhood quality should be a factor in their decision-making." see http://law.wm.edu/news/stories/2010/dwyer-excerpt-unfit-communities.php excerpt.
While child abuse and the issues he discusses is a no brainer, there already are laws, and the state, time and again, has failed to protect the kids that fall under those existing laws (although banning entire neighborhoods from having kids in them is somewhat novel). Again, a lot of goals sound good in theory, but the "State" does have a propensity to either overreach, or make things worse. In highly politicized climates, such as we have now, what would the requirement be? 'You're neighborhood is too white', 'You attend a non State sanctioned Church', 'You don't agree with the UNs Trans Protocol, and aren't amendable to having the State mutilate your child's genitals'.... Permission for Parental rights status-Denied!
Thank You for your Reply. That is a stupendous write up. The points you have brought up are scary at best. Taking away a mother's child because she made a mistake and must spend time in prison, is beyond cruel. So I propose that if Chelsea were to get convicted (Lord Let Us Pray) then it would be just fine to have taken her children? Oh, Oops I forgot, the fine upstanding grandfather would be glad to step in. No that would not happen. So what we have here is pure racism again. We know whose children will be removed or stolen, Black Brown Asian and Poor White Children. We have had cases like this posted here before. If we do not fight for these Children, All of Ours except those of the elite, will be in danger of being removed. And yes, Our Parental Rights Will Also Be Denied.
James Dwyer's idea went beyond taking away a mother's rights (which can happen under current Child protection laws in cases of abuse, endangerment, neglect). No, what he's saying is that NO ONE gets 'mother's' rights to a newborn child unless the State gives the okay.
This is typically one of the "Big Sticks" used under Communism...everyone belongs to the State. Parents are silenced and controlled by being 'allowed' to retain custody to their kids, as long as they don't criticize the Government and follow Government imposed social engineering and attitudes.
And the implications for a pedophile invested government? They can take any child they want and give that child to whoever they want.
What you have just written is what we have exactly been afraid of, down the road. But with him coming forward and blatantly announcing the taking away of anyone's children is shocking. We know they have taken "certain" children, but now he is coming right out with it. And hardly anyone is paying attention. Lock your doors. Not to give up, but to have meetings behind closed doors with relatives and friends. Get to your library and pin up flyers for meetings and hand out more flyers on corners. Also make calls to your senators and congressmen and let them know that you are not on board for any of this.
All the social engineering that Hillary and Obama were working for on behalf of the Global powers that be, would have snuck up on everyone as people were still fighting over toilets...and would be happening. Now we at least have a shot of talking about it, to convince people not to vote for giving away our country to the cabal at the UN.
The post has been deleted by MF Reason 1. I don't understand, if it was incorrect in some way why was it even moved to the HOT page in the first place. I am so mixed up. I so wanted all this info and what was in the comments to reach others.
view the rest of the comments →
kestrel9 ago
Interesting find...So James Dwyer believes the State should decide whether or not to grant parental rights to anyone, period. http://archive.is/b2Yv1
Does his concern for newborns exist 5 minutes before birth? An hour, a day, a week?
He does advocate putting babies born to incarcerated parents up for adoption, and he does not advocate the case for 'prison babies' being raised in prison nurseries and maybe this is what he's getting at, 'don't let convicted mothers have parental rights'. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/07/prison-born/395297/
But that specific debate is a far cry to the slippery slope of a blanket statement of having the State be the one to hold the inherent rights of 'state parenthood' if you will, only granting license to whatever adult they decide fits their view of who should be allowed to raise children and where.
2010
While child abuse and the issues he discusses is a no brainer, there already are laws, and the state, time and again, has failed to protect the kids that fall under those existing laws (although banning entire neighborhoods from having kids in them is somewhat novel). Again, a lot of goals sound good in theory, but the "State" does have a propensity to either overreach, or make things worse. In highly politicized climates, such as we have now, what would the requirement be? 'You're neighborhood is too white', 'You attend a non State sanctioned Church', 'You don't agree with the UNs Trans Protocol, and aren't amendable to having the State mutilate your child's genitals'.... Permission for Parental rights status-Denied!
carmencita ago
Thank You for your Reply. That is a stupendous write up. The points you have brought up are scary at best. Taking away a mother's child because she made a mistake and must spend time in prison, is beyond cruel. So I propose that if Chelsea were to get convicted (Lord Let Us Pray) then it would be just fine to have taken her children? Oh, Oops I forgot, the fine upstanding grandfather would be glad to step in. No that would not happen. So what we have here is pure racism again. We know whose children will be removed or stolen, Black Brown Asian and Poor White Children. We have had cases like this posted here before. If we do not fight for these Children, All of Ours except those of the elite, will be in danger of being removed. And yes, Our Parental Rights Will Also Be Denied.
kestrel9 ago
James Dwyer's idea went beyond taking away a mother's rights (which can happen under current Child protection laws in cases of abuse, endangerment, neglect). No, what he's saying is that NO ONE gets 'mother's' rights to a newborn child unless the State gives the okay.
This is typically one of the "Big Sticks" used under Communism...everyone belongs to the State. Parents are silenced and controlled by being 'allowed' to retain custody to their kids, as long as they don't criticize the Government and follow Government imposed social engineering and attitudes.
And the implications for a pedophile invested government? They can take any child they want and give that child to whoever they want.
carmencita ago
What you have just written is what we have exactly been afraid of, down the road. But with him coming forward and blatantly announcing the taking away of anyone's children is shocking. We know they have taken "certain" children, but now he is coming right out with it. And hardly anyone is paying attention. Lock your doors. Not to give up, but to have meetings behind closed doors with relatives and friends. Get to your library and pin up flyers for meetings and hand out more flyers on corners. Also make calls to your senators and congressmen and let them know that you are not on board for any of this.
kestrel9 ago
All the social engineering that Hillary and Obama were working for on behalf of the Global powers that be, would have snuck up on everyone as people were still fighting over toilets...and would be happening. Now we at least have a shot of talking about it, to convince people not to vote for giving away our country to the cabal at the UN.
carmencita ago
The post has been deleted by MF Reason 1. I don't understand, if it was incorrect in some way why was it even moved to the HOT page in the first place. I am so mixed up. I so wanted all this info and what was in the comments to reach others.
kestrel9 ago
It falls into politics, without really specifying a direct case example to pedophilia. Good topic for PG whatever?
carmencita ago
Well, that is a thought, but not too many will see it there and newcomers will never go there. I will think about it.