WWL>Topics>>1-10-14 11:10am Don Dubuc: on parents' rights

1-10-14 11:10am Don Dubuc: on parents' rights

Jan 10, 2014|

Don Dubuc fills in for Garland and talks with David Delugas of the National Association of Parents about parents' rights and how much leeway parents should have with their own children.

Related Audio:

  1. Think Tank 1210pm drug addiction in the city


    Tue, 28 Mar 2017

    Should drug addiction in the city be treated as a health issue or drug issue? More deaths due to overdose in New Orleans than homicide. This hours guest: Dr. Jeffery Rouse - Orleans Parish Coronor

  2. Think Tank 1110am healthcare plan


    Tue, 28 Mar 2017

    Bernie Sanders said he’s going to push his plan for a single-payer healthcare plan like Europe.  He says Obamacare is costing us too much and the GOP can’t get their bill together to correct the problems. This hours guest: Michael Cannon - Director of Health Policy @ Cato Institute

  3. Think Tank 1010am recreational marijuana


    Tue, 28 Mar 2017

    OH CANADA!  Could Canada be the next country to legalize recreational marijuana? Canada is proposing legislation that would legalize recreational marijuana by 2018.  This hours guest: Chief Larry Kirk - Retired Chief ( Old Monroe Police Department, Missouri & member of LEAP (Law Enforcement Action Partnership)

  4. Think Tank 1210pm select committee


    Mon, 27 Mar 2017

    Is an independent “select committee” necessary in the investigation of Russian hacking & possible collusion with Trump associates? This hours guest: Max Bergmann - Senior Fellow at Center for American Progress Steve Bucci - Director of the Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation


Automatically Generated Transcript (may not be 100% accurate)

I at this hour we're going to attack on a topic a very interesting -- on Susan bronco. Triggered a memory that I hand. But it deals with with parents and we have the executive director of the national association of parents which is the voice apparent in the USA. And also a family law attorney David Lucas jones' David thanks for being. And if you would tell us about your association -- to have -- guest explained to listeners. What the association is all about perhaps commission's statement which have been around in and when he -- accomplished. Outbreaks on what we are one street tax exempt charity. In the it is -- member dues paying organization. Similar structure. That we -- agenda. He. We were present here and there are -- -- you know and here. Teenaged parents -- student -- -- -- all of our parents and their children. And we expect and hope poster. Children responsible fortunately some. But we're here to help here partly virtual. What they do torture and our inspectors -- just -- -- declaration. All over the place orders from the Internet. Friends in the record -- should should do well one of the boards -- tell. Society. Let parents raised world -- so long that virtual. It's about the -- to the side and that the constitutional standard US Supreme Court ruled. And we -- to be at that waste collected worries here and one. So that we can and me and it's based. Each and it actually making anything happen in certain terms of public policy or legislation. We need -- -- powerful ways more appearance join. Join this cause. And the. Am I you say you -- one seats -- you've been investigated by the IRS lately. -- -- short -- -- that happened happened -- candidly with our mission statement to be protecting. The current traditional -- here. We actually were approved in short order we have a solid board in our. Our goals are to provide them when we appreciate being street legal services to parents who find themselves. And one former and other over there right -- -- actual. So you and him would you go as far as making appearances on at least statements in court case. Absolutely unique indeed -- the streets for justice -- -- -- it yeah. No affiliation yet -- -- and he projected -- are indeed he were to tackle there are issues. I would not started this organization. Because it just -- -- In protecting the current -- right up there -- They just don't built into her key issues. Our goal is to provide lawyers are either a patient war. We will paid -- -- local -- To be caught sector are able to fly maturity in two aren't commissioner dollar. Well you know protective. And our dollar burger we yearly retain counsel oh -- but it appeared. We negotiate fees try to keep -- reasonable. We provide support services in terms of legal research strategizing. It and as necessary we will likely would come in and testify. Or legislative bodies considering legislation that -- leader. A -- to restrain. Or require periods to do or not something we might want to be heard on those issues. Understood can you tell me some examples of bomb. Issues that you've got involved in case you've been involved in when there was government -- law enforcement interference. That parents. And your association felt world overboard. Other. Name and from what is happening -- in the news. It's seemingly on a weekly basis and we are getting involved slowly but surely our membership. Grows and our funding grows. Particular case hits and errors and other. Made the decision that it -- not risky not too risky for children to remain in the law or air conditioning running -- running. -- into the store about it and she came out. Lisa had we're all concerned her children were not all our. There again we're not advocating that suggestion it's a great idea regional court. That debate on air raid and that wasn't terribly common and while our cases virtual or. And -- sometimes they died that horrible. Interpret anything -- -- we're not suggesting here with the children at risk. Or that they are -- their children and our. And -- and child protected investigation. That became intrusive children again that -- educate children on there and distort the children now being limited there's been any. Inappropriate touching a subject matter children should even after you think about. And inspire and being passed. To be able approval bots out services. The -- now been charged by the -- -- was in danger of her children and a question. And partly. So yes David we handled in the -- -- that you pick it up where you left -- If she's been charged with child endangerment keeping him or her children were not part. And I worry that it's slippery slope in -- Then you about it legal parlance. Might result in parents who allow their children the blonde jokes here but they tackle football -- just in gymnastics. Many activities were children or or severely hurt airlines. But the spiritual and two or analyzing risk in making the determination about an appropriate level. Risky of their children that -- a state official has decided. That's too dangerous to the point what we -- going to criminally charged. And potentially put you in jail in the -- he would -- right now that's. Just horrible burden appears to have to deal with. And you know the organization which is back a little bit so that perhaps. In an area where there are fine -- sources. For the protection of true and we suggest a long -- In Child Protective Services. With your money be better spent investigating. -- rattling. The abuses of children never actually shown and where you're not doing a good job because there are cases. Often talked about work. Complained -- appeared. Fell through the cracks in weeks or months later child turns up in the emergency room or in the -- we want the focus to be on children who all -- And apparently -- to a store chain right now and their children were straight and sit on the court air conditioning and now that that's and that's credible minor example -- is an example of an abuse of power. Jason. Grip on the country their medical issues where. Medical doctors licensed in the state -- appearance -- by parents follow that advice. But other doctors differ in their opinion and Child Protective Services comes in in suggests that they're doing it at Morgan -- substitute. Our judgment. For the judgment and appearance and more user and following medical advice. Critical medical advice it just doesn't think we at what some bureaucrat thinks is that were actually the parent should have made. You it to actually about yourself and your body I -- well. And we should have been infected you know under our constitution. Week you don't have right. But it seems some people in government don't think that that. A constitutional restriction may well. Well that can be a fine line between child abuse in the what is communal selective parenting. What is the measuring stick and he is Eric Garland is they are breaking point or tipping point in and who makes that decision. Well so far I would I would say that it's the fourteenth amendment of the constitution and the interpretation of it US Supreme Court itself. Up until that point where there's actual harm to Asia child. Show by clear and convincing evidence. In the state reference in all aspects of government does not have the right to infringe. On Detroit is that appeared breaks. And that's as good definition has the Supreme Court has ever given it. And in the states has to decide what it means and the definition of actual. In actual war. Now again we don't really want children to be endangered we -- -- hopeful that not the case. So it's about. For our organization it's about the push that let agencies and government. That they need to be prudent in their choice that we in the pursuit playing. And went or charges and win the. Yeah kind of a check and balance system Davis they would we're gonna take a quick break here we come back again a couple of text messages and if anyone wants to weigh in on this topic on. A way of iPhone line it's opened poignant 260187. Toll free 8668890. Point 78. -- especially like to hear from a parent who may be feels like they have been. Wrong bin in in beat trying to be told how to raise their -- Also if you wanna weigh in on operating opinion poll question we got a new and up there for you. It is very simple should the way you parent. The anyone else's business simple yes or no WW all dot com where you find it will be right back to weigh in on in Afghanistan. And welcome back into the think tank guy asking you this question for -- pretty pinion bowl should the way you parent beat anyone else's business. Right now it's 82% saying no and what does that 3828. Like 38% saying yes it is someone else's business Wilson discusses is David Lucas Davis is the executive director. For the national association of parents the voice of parents in the USA. Also a family law attorney asking you to weigh in on non discussion. And David I've got a couple of text -- like you to address one gets back to. About the issue that she did acacia describe with a lady in Arizona left the kids in the car. This was as any parent that is too lazy to take the economic call when they go in a store no matter how long should be prosecuted to the fullest. Is this a case of child abuse or is it complete parents preference. I would have to go back again and it -- competitive but it's the constitution we live in a free society what of the -- of -- -- society -- If you are no war. The question then becomes what is that anyone to question your conduct so in this case. Well the preference of Munich here and maybe most parents might in fact be. That you take your job here. Even the momentary. And then again the question is what's momentary -- -- -- convenience torture pumping -- And you go and it paid for there are returned dollars before you come back up the -- Is that too long to look after children there. Is your true risk or just perceived risk. Not appreciated with this group there's a group in the New York called free range kids. Not commonly blog about it's often that our society becoming so scared of any activity regarding children that were actually. Grieving children with that your life -- we're telling them that they are incapable of caring for themselves. And the detrimental now that's -- we do agree with that view -- our view the opposition or public policy comes from. The right of the urge to make these decisions we hope children never ever hurt but the prosecuted here. Who takes. The care of their child considers it makes a reasoned decision one that you're -- agree. And then prosecuted and I think violates their constitutional right and that's the issue. It's not whether we all be on the right thing to do it because we don't ever -- we may disagree on whether it's safe to let children drink. Certain things whether cynical -- child on the glass to -- -- there are commonplace in Europe. Weather's okay of the job that caffeine there are a lot of things that are viewed as dangerous or not appropriate for children. Typically -- harmful. As a free society following the constitution. We shouldn't allow parents to make those decisions even ones with which we me personally. Agree. In keeping with that fourteenth amendment in the question of whether it's infringed upon in the definition of actual harm. He is a text that comes in and says what about when you see kids. Being dragged through a store by the om and getting curse that does he wants to play with a toy in the shelf some parents need help would -- beacons a lot of people would argue that's emotional on. And possibly physical harm by dragging him to Obama's someone sees that reports -- what should law enforcement and government -- -- anything. Well. Give them amnesty to firm the legal aspect Wright's appearance. That is parenting that I find awful. It is not hearing that I would encourage endorse. Support. There -- -- actual physical harm. They become an issue and it depends it's spanking in some states speaking -- -- outright illegal. And he appeared to signal bridges you're telling me I can't spank my own child. Then what's the levels spanking that's permissible or not and I think you. An expression earlier it was on target the year before and and we all have to figure out what that is and our government needs to push back and part of what happens in our society which should be happening is that there is so push back from here. -- this is should be permissible. Because on the parent I'm not actually hurting my job others like -- otherwise. But the balance point will column. True the question appears in one direction and government and others who would say it is horrible and look forward right now we've been and well. The deck is stacked in favor of -- stacked against peers because parents don't have been re sources. They don't have the -- more in the legal assistants. Or dispute that the pushed back because. Government has a limited resources. And that has been an anti government organization read this is simply a matter -- again a free society. Up to what you -- -- -- -- that the story and regrettable I hope somebody can be offered their assistance. Oh. But our society has our -- resources at the -- to decide where it would allocate those and we can't help everybody. We're not going to be in a position open everybody. And the notion that we care. In the bit naive and in order to figure out what about sports. David thanks for being with us -- think you organizations are very noble -- serve and a very good purpose if you would give us the web -- on the contact phone number of someone wants to find out more information perhaps stay -- needed -- services or just to find out more about this whole issue of what's going on. Terrific it's Paris USA dot org. Hear you -- dot org an awful on the open book and thank Starr appreciate you directing is very very touchy an important topic. That's exactly what it is thanks again David we appreciate it.