Americans are, unfortunately, tragically unaware of the extent to which Child Protective Services persecutes innocent families, and things won’t change until people are made aware. Just how little people know about this was illustrated recently when Janet Parshall, host of In the Market on Moody Radio, covered the horrific story of Norwegian parents whose five children had been snatched from them by that nation’s branch of CPS because the parents had been accused of exposing their children to “radical Christian indoctrination”. It was refreshing in January to hear Parshall cover CPS’s horrific trampling of parents since this is such an underpublicized issue. However, when comparing Norway’s CPS to America’s, she she said, unlike Norway, CPS in America removes children from the home “only as a last resort”. This, however, is profoundly wrong.
America’s CPS is hardly less evil than that of Norway and there is ample evidence to illustrate this point. Here in America, ripping children away from their parents, without any sort of due process, is very much a first resort for CPS across this country.
Citizens should never forfeit any of their rights unless they are convicted of a crime. Convicted, not merely suspected or accused. Child Protective Services, as pointed out in the recent “Reflections on modern parenting” articles, routinely ignores this core principle of the American jurisprudence. They routinely work to strip parents of their fundamental right to parent their children. The pretentiously named “Children’s Advocacy Center” in Jackson works hand in hand with CPS, admitting in their own literature that they collaborate with social workers in parental abuse cases to return children to the “non-offending” parent. Why would a child be removed by CPS from a “non-offending parent” in the first place? This is blatantly unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, this horrifying trend of stripping non-criminals of rights can be seen in other sectors of the government, and not just CPS. Consider, for instance, the “No Fly” list that President Obama has referred to recently. The “No Fly” list, which dates back to the George W. Bush administration, is a list of people the government suspects of some form of terrorist activity. Certain citizens, because they are suspected of terrorism involvement, are prohibited from boarding an airplane. This “half measure” is not remotely constitutional, though. If someone has actually committed acts of terrorism, then they should be convicted in a criminal court. If they haven’t been convicted, they should have none of their rights stripped. If we allow the government to strip rights away, based solely on suspicion, we are paving the way for the U.S. to become a totalitarian dictatorship.
This unjust “half measure” approach by the government is something that can be seen throughout history. Recall Pontius Pilate’s approach to Jesus. Though he recognized there was no evidence Jesus had committed a crime, and certainly nothing that would warrant crucifixion, he was intimidated by the mob demanding Jesus’ blood. Pilate initially objected to their demands to crucify Jesus, but then he said, “Therefore, I will punish him and release him” (Luke 23:22). Ponder the ridiculousness of this “half measure” Pilate was suggesting. If Jesus was truly guilty of treason, as the Jewish leaders were alleging, Pilate would be obligated to execute him as a criminal. If, however, Jesus was innocent, nothing other than a complete exoneration would’ve been just. Pilate, not wanting at first to execute Jesus, but not having the guts to release him, decided to punish Jesus just a little (if a brutal Roman flogging can be considered a “little” thing).
The same “half measure” can be seen in the story of Joseph and Potiphar in Genesis 39. Potiphar’s wife tried to seduce Joseph, but he refused. In revenge, she accused Joseph of trying to rape her. Biblical scholars have pointed out that Joseph’s imprisonment implies Potiphar himself was hardly convinced of the truth of his wife’s accusations. Had Potiphar believed Joseph was guilty, he’d have had him executed, not imprisoned. Potiphar’s solution, similar to Pilate’s, was to punish Joseph “just a little”. There was nothing just in what Potiphar did.
In America, there are already laws in place (the Bill of Rights, for instance) that ought to prohibit CPS from their campaign of persecution against innocent families. The U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) could also be considered a protection (particularly Articles 9, 10, and 11). That said, there is also an urgent need for certain laws to be changed. For instance, when youth courts take children away from allegedly abusive or neglectful parents, the standard of evidence is not “beyond a reasonable doubt”, as in a criminal court. Rather, it is the lowest legal standard that exists—“preponderance of evidence”. Preponderance merely means “more likely than not”. In other words, if a parent is accused of something, the allegation doesn’t need to be compellingly proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In practice, “preponderance” basically means whatever the whim of the judge is. If the judge speculates that there’s a more than decent chance the parent is guilty, that’s all there is to it. The parent is damned.
The mindset behind CPS is a communistic one—one that says children don’t belong ultimately to God and, humanly speaking, to parents; they belong to the state. The most deplorable thing to a totalitarian state is free citizens who exercise free choices. In a totalitarian mindset, the state is god and micromanages every facet of life. It’s not coincidental that one of Karl Marx’s first principles in the Communist Manifesto, along with the abolition of private property, is the abolition of the family. If families are strong and intact, citizens may love their mother, father, son, daughter, brother, or sister more than the State.
Family love is an obstacle to a totalitarian state’s goal of getting absolute and undivided allegiance from citizens. A totalitarian state wants to be looked to as the ultimate provider, and therefore strong, responsible families providing for themselves and for their children are a rival to the State’s goals. That’s why, tax-wise, people are “penalized” for getting married and divorce and singleness is incentivized. The program is working—today, only 45% of American children are raised by intact families with a mother and father.
Remember, as the Declaration of Independence states, our human rights are derived from God, not from the government. Parents’ rights to nurture their children is a God-given right, not a state-given right. May God embolden American parents to stand up for their children. Parents who choose to obey God rather than man, just as the Hebrew midwives obeyed God rather than Pharaoh, will be blessed indeed.