Federally funded termination of parental rights or TPR began decades ago where states receive tens of thousands of dollars every-time they terminate parental rights. Agencies could acquire millions of dollars in federal funds beyond their state budget just by terminating the rights of parents.
When did we begin to think that it was the government's role to take children and provide care for them?
“As long as we look to government to solve our problems we will always suffer tyranny." William Pitt
Child care was never the province of governments in early America. It was the province and responsibility of the people, who were the fourth branch of government in a Republic. They accomplished this through charitable institutions, free associations, and Churches.
“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” ― attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville.[1]
Even the idea that the care of widows should be within the province of government was hotly disputed by the people as expressed by congressman David Crockett back in the 1800s.
There were few orphanages in early America and they were almost all built and run by churches.
Children seldom stayed in an orphanage for even a year. They would be returned to friends or surviving families or adopted by people desiring children. Many people would be adopted in their community so children never saw an orphanage.
The care of widows and orphans had been an obligation placed upon Christians by Moses and Christ. In fact, their care is the very definition of Pure Religion.
There was almost no discussion of aid for widows and orphans coming from government taxes until 1909 which first White House Conference on Children convened by President Theodore Roosevelt.
They decided that "home life is the highest and finest product of civilization. Children should not be deprived of it except for urgent and compelling reasons...”
Nothing much was done until 1935 when the Federal government began to take on the care of not only orphans but also widows and disabled through taxation schemes like Social Security and other welfare programs. With little objection from the Churches, the State began to take over what had once been the province of the Churches and community until the people become accustomed to the morality of the welfare state.
The New Deal of FDR and War on Poverty of LBJ were where the destructive power of government was unleashed. Few saw that the covetous practices of socialism were oozing into the American soul. Ignorant of history[2] and little real knowledge of the Bible outside of the churches who had abandoned the province of Pure Religion they had no idea that what should have been for their welfare was a snare.[3]
"That the man who first ruined the Roman people twas he who first gave them treats and gratuities" Plutarch's Life of Coriolanus (c. 100 AD.)
If people want their rights back they must take back their responsibilities. For more than three decades I ave seen parents have their children taken without just cause only to have them abused in foster care. Yes, "home life is the highest and finest product of civilization. Children should not be deprived of it except for urgent and compelling reasons..." but that is only true if the home life is provided by love and charity. Foster care has become a government-industry and while many will do a fair job a child is more likely to be abused in the government's care than the general population.
"An army of mercenary only fights for the love of money."
It is the sloth and avarice of the modern American that has allowed the child care industry to become a beast that goes around abusing, biting, and devouring families and children.
"Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now." Jefferson's statement in Notes on the State of Virginia.
We could apply Jefferson's statement about the government's prescription or our health to the care of our children. Looking to men who call themselves benefactors but exercise authority one over the other to provide us with benefits and care is a recipe to make us merchandise and curse children.
Ancient PATERNAL POWER
Bouvier's Law Dictionary
1856 Edition
PATERNAL POWER. Patria potestas, The, authority lawfully exercised by parents, over their children. It will be proper to consider, 1. Who are entitled to exercise this power. 2. Who are subject to it. 3. The extent of this power.
2. - 1. As a general rule the father is entitled to exert the paternal power over his children. But for certain reasons, when the father acts improperly, and against the interest of those over whom nature and the law have given him authority, he loses his power over them. It being a rule that whenever the good of the child requires it, the courts will deliver the custody of the children to others than the father. And numerous instances may be found where, for good reasons, the custody will be given to the mother.
3. The father of a bastard child has no control over him; the mother has the right to the custody and control of such child. 2 Mass. 109; 12 Mass. 887.
4. - 2. All persous are subject to this power until they arrive at the full age of twenty-one years. A father may, however, to, a certain extent, deprive himself of this unlimited paternal power, first, by delegating it to others, as when he binds his son an apprentice; and, secondly, when he abandons his children, and permits them to act for themselves. 2 Verm. Cas. 290; 2 Watts, 408 4 S. & R. 207; 4 Mass. 675.
5. - 3. The principle upon which the law is, founded as to the extent of paternal power is, that it be exerted for the benefit of the child. The child is subject to the lawful commands of the father to attend to his business, because by being so subjected he acquires that discipline and the practice of attending to business, which will be useful to him in after life. He is liable to proper correction for the same reason. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 326-33. See Correction; Father; Mother; Parent.
A child does not own its parents but the parent has a natural right to the child. The parent in nature gives life to the child, rears and protects it compounding the obligation of the Child to the parent. The command by God to honor your parents was the command to "fatten" care for and provide for the parents who gave you life so that your own days would be long upon the land.
The state has often competed for this power of the natural Father to its own benefit and obtains that right by offering "tutor" or gifts, gratuities and benefits to the parents as the custodial parent on behalf of the state.
We see that when the duties of the patria potestas is vested in a ruling class who is elected by the voice of the people, as we see the people of Israel who were warned in 1 Samuel 8, that a loss of parental right would result. The State could reverse that natural right which would become a legal privilege granted and regulated by the State.
The warning in 1 Samuel 8 was if the people established or created a government where there is a ruling authority that ruling power will take your sons and daughter and much much more. The process used by the State from Cain to Nimrod, the Pharaoh to Caesar to obtain the natural patria potestas was the offer of protection along with gifts gratuities and benefits. Once the State obtains that power it is said to be the father of the people.
"fundamental liberties and equal protection"
Rights always have a correlative obligation or duty.
The UDHR makes mention that all... all nations ... shall strive ... by progressive measures... to secure their universal and effective ... observance.... among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
That is to say, "Member States" will secure the obedience of all peoples and nations effectively submitted under their jurisdiction through progressive socialism.
Another way of saying the same thing is by offering people equal protection from want of education or "life, liberty, and security of person"[4] or "right to social security"[5] etc..
Progressive socialists will promise people security, education, and liberty but they will deliver all peoples and nations into the bondage of debt.
2 Peter 2:19-22 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
And they do all this through the covetous means of socialism.
[2 Peter 2]:3 ¶ And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
If a Human Being has a right to free education someone has an obligation to provide that education. It would be assumed that the parents have the prior obligation of nurturing their progeny. That obligation is imposed by nature itself and right reason according to the law of nature. Since life was bestowed upon a child by their parents the right to life and a full life begins with the parent. If that life is not provided by the parents then the obligation may fall to another by nature or by Human Events.
If the parents have already obligated themselves to the state, asking the state to provide them with the benefit of life, their rights to their children may be claimed by the state because of prior or present benefits to the parents.
If parents were independent of government benefits and even excluded from those benefits, then the state could not claim a fundamental or legal right to take their children or regulate their children's education.
“Reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself.”[6]
Emperor Titus son of Emperor Vespasian like the Caesars before them were the Patronus of Rome and the Conscripted fathers were Men called father upon the earth. They and men like Saturninus would seal the Christian conflict.
While your right to educate your children may be prior in nature, do you still have that right? Are your children still "Your Children"? Or have you cursed your children through your Covetous Practices? Do your children have another Father now?
↑“The real destroyers of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations, and benefits.”Plutarch
The Historian of Historians from Corinth. Polybius believed all democracies fail. He eventually placed his allegiance with the Roman Republic but warned that it to would fail if "The masses continue with an appetite for benefitsLink titleand the habit of receiving them by way of a rule of force and violence. The people, having grown accustomed to feed at the expense of others and to depend for their livelihood on the property of others... institute the rule of violence; and now uniting their forces massacre, banish, and plunder, until they degenerate again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch." .
↑Psalms 69:22 Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap.
Romans 11:9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
↑Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.
↑Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
↑Cassante ratione legis cessat, et ipsa lex.4 Coke, 38; 7 id. 69; Coke, Litt. 70 b. 122 a; Broom, Max. 3d Lond. ed. 151, 152; 4 Rep. 38; 13 East, 348; 4 Bingh. n.c. 388.
