As a parent, anyone wants to do a survey with your kid, the answer shd be no. Even if the survey had been on violence. Why shd your kid have to answer questions that might upset them and have nothing to do with learning?

My nine year old doesn't even know what 'sex' is, and that's the way I like it. Plenty of time to introduce him when he shows some curiosity. That this court has decided that anybody else can play a role in educating my child about sex without my consent is beyond belief. This has to go to the Supreme Court (after Alito is approved).

I expected this to have happened in Massachusettes, but California isn't much different I suppose. Pretty soon, anyone turning around to look in the direction of these 'anything goes' states is going to turn into a pillar of salt.

This really gives a lot more credit to the notion of home schooling, at least up to a certain age.

California isn't an anything goes state. It may seem that way at times, but it isn't. And I'm surprised this happened in Palmdale. A few years ago, two teenage girls were kidnaped from a lover's lane in Palmdale and raped. It was the first Amber Alert. They tracked them down and as the guy was just about to kill both girls, he was shot dead by a sheriff. Now, I don't know why I am bringing this up but for the fact that it was very cool. That the girls lived and he didn't, that is. :)

Maybe, some of the parents shd track down this grad student and shoot her -- not kill her, mind you, but just wing her. That wd teach her a lesson.

I cannot begin to express my disgust over this. It should be shouted from the rooftops as a prime example of why left wing ideology holds no place in decisions such as this one.

These judges are out of control.

The 9th circus court of appeals the nations most notororiusly overturned court what kind of jerks serve as judges for this bunch of disgracful morons? i mean just becuase of one impossible jerk MICHEAL NEWDOW objects to the pledge the whole nation must do the will of this atheist jackass i mean its time to shut down the 9th curcutt court and give those idiot judges new jobs like washing windows or picking up trash in the parks its time to punish these rough judges

We're not being consistent, folks...

Where in the Constitution can I find the fundamental right giving me, as a parent, to be "the only party introducing seven year olds to issues of sex"?

Is it next to the right giving women complete access to abortion? Or is it next to the language forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages?

Full rebuttal at: ThoughtsOnline

That's me, with the above comment.

Where in the Constitution can I find the fundamental right giving me, as a parent, to be "the only party introducing seven year olds to issues of sex"?

Is an appeals court primarily concerned with Constitutionality?

As long as the good guys (i.e., us) have a narrow governing majority, isn't it way past time to subdivide the idiotarian Ninth Circuit? It's well over twice the size of any other circuit, and for years there have been proposals to break it into two smaller divisions, possibly enlarging the Tenth Circuit as well.

Subdividing wouldn't eliminate decisions like this one, which is almost French in its boneheaded sleaziness, but it would reduce their impact and influence.

You get Rheinhardt, we keep Kozinski.

Blank, can't we just do rock-paper-scissors or something? Loser gets Rheinhardt.

"...there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students." This is farily breath-taking. You know the way prescidents are set, this ruling could be used/mis-used in a whole bunch of different ways

Steve Sturm,

You have a point, except that, where in this case are they actually giving children information about sex? They are asking the children for information, not giving it to them. It's one thing to tell children what the function and location of, say, the ovaries, are, but another to ask a little kid how often he or she masterbates.

Where in the Constitution does it say that a researcher has a right to deceive parents and ask their children about sex without their permission?

That said, I'm not sure the case was wrongly decided (I'd have to look more into it), although I think the reasoning is a bit flawed, and the behavior of the researcher and the school seem to be unethical by professional standards in the psychology field.

"...parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students..."

Cool. So they have now overturned their own Pledge of Allegiance ruling, eh? Parents, in particular Michael Newdow, have no right to override the determination of his daughter's school as to exposing her to information, in particular the Pledege of Allegiance.

What idiots. I mean that sincerely. They are so blatantly political, as opposed to judicial, in their rulings.

Feh. Glad I live in the 6th Circuit.

The "who should be the provider of sex education to children?"argument obviously isn't in the constitution at all. All questions about education should be handled on the local level.

I think that parents should have the final say in all matters of upbringing and education of their kids, unless it can be shown that they are being abused or neglected. If Billy Ray Joe Bob wants to teach his kids that blacks are inferior, that's his business. If Lefty McRevolution wants to teach little Sunflower that Repubs are facists, so be it.

And if anyone thinks that their kids are being taught something inappropriate, they should be able to ask either that the wackjob is removed, or they can yank their kids right out of the crappy school.

Another argument for school vouchers, I'd say.

School vouchers would do much to alleviate the culture wars, I agree.

As for this specific case, I'm thinking I might have cornered the person who decided for me that it was ok to teach my kids about explicit sexual matters, and had a long talk with them. I might have mentioned that the next time they got near my kids, I'd be waiting for them at night in the parking lot with a tire iron.

And of course, I'd deny the conversation ever took place.

Where in the Constitution can I find the fundamental right giving me, as a parent, to be "the only party introducing seven year olds to issues of sex"?

Well since there's no mention, under the 10th amendment "parental control" would be a right given to the states OR the people therein. I think most intelligent readers realize that it's not a right of the states (otherwise why would we have a separate "ward of the state" status), so it IS the parent's right. Solved without penumbras or emanations!

Here's a process for you to follow:
1) Read the Constitution
2) Read the Constitution
3) Bash your head against the wall until you understand this simple concept that should've been taught to you in civics 101: The Constitution DOES NOT list the rights of the citizenry. It lists the (few) powers and duties of the Federal behemoth, while reserving the rest for the states or the people
4) Read the Constitution
5) Read the Federalist Papers
6) Read the Constitution

Repeat until enlightenment is achieved

Actually, LC, the Constitution coversthis under the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Guide for girls in Spain

California will certainly follow their lead.

Steve,

The Ninth Circuit declared the following: "We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."

In other words, if you send you kid to a public school, you have no say whatsoever in how that school will teach your kid about sex. If I, as a Catholic, do not want the school to teach my son how to masturbate, too bad: the State of California has determined that he should learn the various methods of how to beat the meat, and if I don't like it, I can go piss up a rope. Or consider this: the Palmdale School District had asked parents for their permission to survey the kids about their sexuality. Now, thanks to this decision, they don't have to do that! They can just hand out the survey; if the kids don't fill out, they get detention; and if the parents don't like it, well, they'd just better learn to love Big Brother.

This is a revolting decision - not because it's about sex, but because it's a raw seizure of power by the state.

Where in the Constitution can I find the fundamental right giving me, as a parent, to be "the only party introducing seven year olds to issues of sex"?

Howard and utron gave better answers that I would have.

Yeah, hi, uh, my impression about parental rights for the raising of children is that its one of the most inviolable unenumerated right out there. I don't have a cite for this right now, but I thought I would just add some basic stuff from 1L.

This is why even child molestors still can visit their kids (albeit under guard). It seems that this doesn't extend to Christian Scientists (who are very nice people I've learned).

Compare this to the supposed first amendment rights of teachers to teach whatever it is they want to their captive audience.

One of those misunderstandings of laws that pop up everynow and then.

Utron (a transformer BTW), you are right, the ninth circuit should be divided with the offending judges given jurisdiction over the Mojave desert.

Actualy its even worse than that Brownline, as it doesn't just cover sex. If the schools want to teach kids that Hitler is an OK guy or Michael Moore historical revisionism or Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, too bad so sad. You can pull your kids out (at least until they outlaw homeschooling or private schools) but you still have to pay for the "priviledge" of state indoctrination.

Welcome to "It Takes a Village." The village elders know what's best for your children, not you. You are a simple villager, not worthy of or smart enough for the weighty responsibility of raising children. We're from the government and we're here to help you.

Guide for girls in Spain
California will certainly follow their lead.
Posted by scott at November 3, 2005 11:19 AM

Here we go again. You can't go on and on about how great lesbianism is and not expect it to affect kids. You guys think its so great, then tell your daughters how much you enjoy woman going at it and see what they think.

If the schools want to teach kids that Hitler is an OK guy or Michael Moore historical revisionism or Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, too bad so sad.

Just as long as what they're teaching is in not way connected with Christianity ; )

Sue,

I agree. It's disturbing how schools are becoming increasingly involved in areas that are none of their business, or they have no real knowledge or expertise. You used to send your child to school to be taught math, science, etc. Now you send your child to school to be probed about his or her sex life or other personal information, diagnosed with mental illnesses or learning disorders, put on prescription drugs, provided with condoms, etc.

And all this is done by people who are, on average, less intelligent than the rest of the population.

I'm sending my children, if I have any and can afford it, to private school.

Just as long as what they're teaching is in not way connected with Christianity ; )

Of course not. Just as super secret amendment 2X7 established "separation of church and state", amendment 5W2 limited it to just being "evil filthy Christians and neocon jooos" rather than enlightened Buddhists, Shamans, muslims, Scientoligists and assorted pagans

Unfortunately, and I do mean it, if you send your kid to public school they get to teach your kid what they want and do what they want so long as what they're doing is not illegal. The means of changing this is by using the political system (school board elections and pressure on the legislature), not by discovering new rights in the Constitution. And if you're not able to get the outcome you want (because you're in the minority and the majority doesn't either care or want to accomodate you, then you either get to abide by the majority rule or pull your kids out of the public school.

Howard: under your interpretation of the 10th amendment, why is there also not a right to abortion, a right of the retarded to not be executed, a right for same sex couples to be married and so on? Or is it just issues that appeal to conservatives that are protected by the 10th amendment?

And, by the way, there are probably some school districts teaching some of those very issues.

Jason: there's no right for teachers to deceive kids, but neither is there a right to not be deceived. Remember, this argument is not over whether what they are doing is right, but whether the parents have a Constitutional right to insist on something else.

S. Weasel: every federal court - District or appeals - ought to be concerned about the constitutionality of whatever they're being asked to review.

Brown line: I'd agree with your thinking that in the future, school districts won't even bother asking... but this also is something that needs to be changed via the political process and not by judicial discovery of parental rights.

Rabid Fox: I agree, it's going to interesting (and probably troubling) to discover what comes next.

S. Weasel: every federal court - District or appeals - ought to be concerned about the constitutionality of whatever they're being asked to review.

Ummm...no. You don't seem to have a grasp on the difference between law and the Constitution. Most legal issues don't go anywhere near the Constitution. It's only when law conflicts with the few, narrow, enumerated circumstances discussed in the Constitution that the founding document becomes at all relevant. Where the Constitution is mum -- which covers gigantic swaths of everyday life -- it is inappropriate (not to say bizarre) to bring the Constitution into it.

Weasel: ummmm, yes. Spare me the legal education. I know most issues don't touch on the Constitution.

But how does a judge rule on any case without first making sure that there are no Constitutional issues present... especially when the plaintiff's are claiming a violation of their 'rights'?

Jason: there's no right for teachers to deceive kids, but neither is there a right to not be deceived. Remember, this argument is not over whether what they are doing is right, but whether the parents have a Constitutional right to insist on something else.

I think you missed my point. I wouldn't actually qibble with the ruling if it dealt with issues of how and when students were taught about sex. Then it might have been correct. However, the premise of the ruling seems to be that a survey of students' sexual thoughts and behaviors is an instructional activity. It's not. They're asking for information, not providing it.

And as far as whether or not it's legal to deceive parents, well, that depends on the state and local laws regarding conducting research in public schools in California. This really isn't a Constitutional question.

Howard: under your interpretation of the 10th amendment, why is there also not a right to abortion, a right of the retarded to not be executed, a right for same sex couples to be married and so on? Or is it just issues that appeal to conservatives that are protected by the 10th amendment?

Let me requote from Utron:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So it's either a right of the people or a right of the States. Abortion? the STATES can regulate it like any other medical procedure(which is what many conservatives want- a return to the preRoe days where it was a states issue). Marriage? The same (and there's far less outcry where it has occurred legislatively) Euthanasia?- Its called the 5th amendment (and some would argue it applies to abortion also)

It's not an interpretation , I’m just reading the document. It’s written as plain as day. I save interpretation for those magical holy judges.

And considering that you haven't even read the 5th (what did you think it was part of some magical Miranda right since it was invoked in cop shows), get back to me after you complete the 1st grade, before you embarrass yourself by claiming only muskets count as arms or something equally idiotic.

Steve writes: "Brown line: I'd agree with your thinking that in the future, school districts won't even bother asking... but this also is something that needs to be changed via the political process and not by judicial discovery of parental rights."

I do agree that the proliferation of "rights" is a serious problem in our legal lives. However, even if the Constitution does not mention it, tradition and common practice have always recognized that parents have important rights with regard to how their children are raised. These rights, while not enumerated, are the basis of a huge body of law governing the relations of parents with their children, and the circumstances under which the state can reasonably intervene.

This decision is so bad because the Palmdale School District, through its lying on its permission slip, has asserted that parents in fact do not have rights with regard to how their children are instructed. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know whether the parents' case was well handled, but it's clear that the parents did so because of the school district's denial of rights that have been sanctioned by tradition, if not enumerated in the Constitution. And the Ninth Circuit agreed with Palmdale that parents have no rights that the state must respect with regard to the instruction of their children.

I agree with you that the courts are not the best place to hash out these problems. But, with all due respect, I think that for you to say that the political process is the sole way to solve them is wrong. Rights are not something bestowed through the outcome of an election: either parents have rights that the state must respect, or they do not. The Palmdale School District made the radical decision to overrule those rights; and the Ninth Circuit made the even more radical decision to sweep them aside altogether.

Please note: the parents were not asking the court to assert a new "right", such as "Roe" did. The parents were demanding that Palmdale continue to respect the rights that they already had. Palmdale refused, and the Ninth upheld. This is a radical contraction of the liberty that parents had previously enjoyed.

By the way, I wonder what the Ninth Circuit would say if Palmdale had, as part of its supreme authority in the instructing of children, had decided that all of the kids had to, say, recite the Pledge of Allegiance? Somehow, I think the outcome would have been different ... but that's the cynic in me talking.

I hate siding with the 9th Circus, even when it's just on the result, but I don't see the Constitutional issue involved with a state school teaching masturbation, homosexuality, or the 5 best ways to set cats on fire. If the state insists on doing this and state courts uphold it, your only relevant constitutional right is the right of interstate travel. The 10th Amendment reserves this stuff to the states and the feds have exactly zero authority to intervene.

I also missed the 5th Amendment's application to euthanasia performed by private physicians. Maybe there is a footnote I overlooked?

If we start thinking "constitutional" means the same thing as "really good policy," we have made the same fatal error as the left. And who will stand for the Constitution then?

What gets me about this decision is that, yes, I know the court's reasoning would have been correct in a perfectly consistent world, but the thing is, the legal environment we're in now is completely different. Thanks to Roe v. Wade and the like, we've got all these "penumbras" and "emanations" flying around, and they can do just about anything that liberal social planners can dream up in their wee heads to inflict on the rest of us. But let some parents object and then, pow, suddenly the crack-smokers on the 9th suddenly morph into hard line originalists and all the interpretations get very narrow and strict. The double standard here is truly breathtaking.

Not even the three stooges could be as rediclous as the infamous 9th circus court they are morons with gavels and robes

So anyone who talks to my children about sex before I'm ready to talk to them about sex should be subject to a lawsuit by me?

It seems that the remedy here is to go after the idoits on the school board in the next election for allowing this to happen on their watch, not to bankrupt the public school with a lawsuit because the parents mistakenly consented to allowing their kids to fill outa questionaire which included 10 questions with sexual overtones that 1st graders wouldn't have understood.

A better parent would never have allowed the children to be invovled in this type of "survey" in the first place after reading the permission slip.

HowardDevore,

"Article 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment fo religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... & c."

So long as schools remain "public" (that is, State-owned), forcing a child to declare the Pledge of Allegiance with a blatant (and inaccurate) religious reference is a declaration of religious preference on the part of the State.

The idea behind vouchers solves this problem entirely. If you wish your child to be attend a religious school and say his prayers every morning... youre quite welcome to do so by taking him/her to a private school. If you do not (as I would) wish to educate your child in the finer points of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin - that is also your choice. Take your child to a secular private school.

Adam and Eve never hadconstitution to worry about to have their kids' rights be protected by the State of Eden.
The US overtly protects the human rights to unnecessary extents already bybreaching parents' full right to exercise their methods of raising their own children.
That's the whole idea of having your own kids as entrustment, that YOURSELF have to maintain untl theyr'e ready to venture the world on their own.

I expect to see this jewel of a quote appear again and again, especially whenever a "Pledge" case come before the 9th Circuit.

9th Circuit Appeals Court Judge Stephen Reinhardt said: “Schools cannot be expected to accommodate the personal, moral or religious concerns of every parent. Such an obligation would not only contravene the educational mission of the public schools, but also would be impossible to satisfy.” pg. 14, Fields v. Palmdale School District, 03-56499

I think the real mistake here was going to federal court with a constitutional argument. While the notion that parents may not have any constitutional rights to control the destiny of their children is not very appealing, it is probably quite accurate (at least after they are born).
They (the parents) should have tried this in the state courts as a fraud or contract law argument. Simply showing that the breath of the permission slip did not include much of the material contained in the survey should have been enough to make the school think twice about trying this again.

Eesh, this is not the ugliest example of Indoctrination that the little tykes face. And the way to fight it is NOT on their turf, the law. The law is what people turn to when they lack common sense, right? Sheesh.

The way to fight this is simple: teach your children. Teach them not to give their trust to people who haven't earned it. Teach them it's perfectly OK for them to refuse to answer weird questions when a stranger asks them, even if the stranger is a teacher or other "authority" who says they "have to." Teach them that no one can read your mind -- it's your one true private property.

Teach them about the history and nature of public school. Invite them to question the groupthink. Point out the lack of intellectual diversity. Point out the errors and the hypocrisy. Reinforce and approve of their discomfort when the school -- or anyone -- asks them to do stuff they instinctively know is weird or wrong.

In short, teach them to be cranky, suspicious, independent-minded, liberated freethinkers, just like their ancestors who tamed a continent and wrote what they they thought were ironclad guarantees of freedom into the Constitution.

Face it, folks. Power corrupts. People with power always begin to abuse it, sooner or later. And there is NO relief from that problem by appealing to another powerful person! You can't fight power-drunk judges with even more power-drunk judges. The cure would be worse than the disease!

What's needed, as always, is an independent-minded, unafraid citizenry that is unbelievably reluctant to have anyone anywhere, no matter how la-de-da aristocratic, tell them what to do or think.