Prominent Law Prof: ‘State Should Take Over the Legal Parental Role of Children’


A professor at the College of William and Mary believes parents shouldn’t be considered the ultimate legal guardians of children. That responsibility he claims belongs to the state and other government institutions.

Of course, Professor James G. Dwyer especially hates homeschooling as well.

In an interview for CRTV about homeschooling, Professor James G. Dwyer told syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin that:

The reason that parent-child relationship exists is because the state confers legal parenthood on people through its paternity and maternity laws.

That’s the state that empowers parents to do anything with children, to take them home, to have custody, and to make any kind of decisions about that.

What is alarming is that Professor Dwyer isn’t just some stuffy old academic writing filth only read by other fellow academics in prestigious international journals.

An investigation into Dwyer’s writings and history reveals that this alarming statement was not an exaggerated statement taken out of context or misrepresented by a conservative journalist.

Instead, the statement appears to be a foundational core belief held by a man who formerly worked in New York state family courts as a Law Guardian, which is the equivalent of a Guardian ad Litem.

Dwyer’s writings now influences policy within the family court system.

Professor Dwyer firmly believes that it is the state that bestows upon parents the rights of parenthood, not genetics or God.

That philosophy plays right into the hands of Child Protective Services officials who believe that it is the state’s right to decide who may or may not parent their own children.

As far back as 1994, Professor Dwyer wrote “Parents’ Religion and Children’s Welfare: Debunking the Doctrine of Parents’ Rights,” published in the California Law Review. In it, he challenged the assumption that “parents should have some rights in connection with the raising of their children,” going as far as to discuss provisions “under the legal regime I propose.”

Professor Dwyer is trying to help create a new world order in which children are the property of the state, with parents acting merely as the appointed custodians.

Who really controls the children – parents or state?

That is the real questions going on here involving the legal debate over innate parental rights and homeschooling.

It is clear from the 1994 article that he resents any schooling taught from a religious perspective, whether it is from parents sending their children to a Christian school, or from parents rejecting the secularism taught in public schools who choose to homeschool and teach religious principles at home.

Ironically, he wrote almost 25 years ago that:

No one should possess a right to control the life of another person no matter what reasons, religious or otherwise, he might have for wanting to do so.

His argument makes no sense whatsoever. No person should possess the right to control another person EXCEPT the government. Are not government officials people? Would not therefor the people working for the government be exerting “a right to control the life of another person” thereby violating his legal argument?

Even if you look at it through the lens that the government is acting as a cohesive body, is not that entity still holding the powerful legal position of an individual authoritarian figure?

But, according to Professor Dwyer and his growing number of leftist legal counterparts, that is not the case. We are now living in a world where legal experts helping to craft public policy are arguing that the state is the true legal guardians of children.

Continue to the next page to learn how a growing movement is seeking to shift parents legal rights to the state

Next Page »



Share

941 Comments

Leave a Reply