Saturday, October 31, 2009

Texas law allows parental sex education

AP reports:
DALLAS — A 1970s-era Texas law that allows parents to show "harmful material" to their children has come under fire after a prosecutor said he couldn't file charges ...

"Our hands are tied. It's not our fault. I have to follow the law," [County DA] Farren said Thursday. "The mother of the victims in this case was less than happy with this decision, which I understand. ..."

The law apparently was meant to protect the privacy of parents who wanted to teach children about sex education, ...

The girls' mother, Crystal Buckner, wants her ex-husband to be jailed. She said she was stunned to hear from prosecutors and police that nothing can be done. ...

"I want people to know about this. I want parents to be mad and say, 'No!"' she said. "I understand in the '70s everybody wanted the government to stay out of their homes. I don't want to stop parents from having that right to teach sex education, but there's a big difference and there's a line you should not cross when teaching."
So there is a Texas law that says that parents can teach their kids sex education as they see fit, and there is a bitter ex-wife who is trying to put her ex-husband in jail based on a her opinion that the law ought to be changed so as to draw some line on what can be taught, and to jail parents who cross the line. I say that Texas has a good law, and the govt should not meddle in such private matters.

If you read the whole article, assume that her allegations are true, and imagine the worst, then you will probably disapprove. But consider the ramifications of a change in the law. I know parents who disapprove of school sex ed classes. Some parents let their kids listen to sexually explicit rap music, and some don't. Some tightly control TV watching and some don't. Some like nude beaches and some say girls should always wear veils. I just don't think that the govt should be micromanaging these decisions, and certainly not when it is all driven by a vindictive ex-wife, as in this case.

The ex-wife sounds a little crazy to me. I think that there is something seriously wrong with a woman who would carry on a crusade like this. In my opinion, she is the one who crossed a line here by going to the police with a minor complaint about his parenting style.

If they pass a law to criminalize "insensitive father showing inappropriate video to his minor child", then I hope they also criminalize "crazy bitch making reckless and destructive accusation".


Anonymous said...

Well, George, a big part of how I lost my kids to their mother here in Santa Cruz County was that after several court-appointed psych evaluations (I only had 6 compared to your 8 or 9) the conclusions were that the mother and I are diametrically opposite in child-rearing approaches. The crux being the mother believes in absolute obedience to a strict conservative biblical approach and I'm a more secular "rationalist" who espouses critical thinking. Not that I disparage or discourage religion in bringing up children at all, I had my kids baptized Episcopalian and we attended church frequently and had them in Sunday school. Interestingly enough, in one of the psych evals my kids were diagnosed as exhibiting PTSD and cult-like behavior after living exclusively with the mother for a year under a "temporary" restraining order. At the final hearing, JJJ didn't bother to read any of the reports (which he freely admitted in court) other than the two lines that the kids didn't want to see me and that the mother and I had different "ideologies". Thus I now can't even send them Christmas or birthday cards for at least another year. So the bottom line is that yes, at least in this county there already is a law against "insensitive fathers". I guess my insensitivity was that my religious beliefs and parenting style were somehow at odds w/the kids' mother and that you can't espouse a different party line than the mother's.

Anonymous said...

Oh my GOD sir, my heart goes out to you for the suffering your kids and you have endured.

In your view, what's the point of so many evaluations being done by the courts ? any theories ?

Anonymous said...

thank you. I'm not the only one I know in this county that went through the same thing. Interestingly enough we agreed on most/all matters religious when we were married, she left that church and we chose what we did as the best possible solution given our backgrounds and values. A shame to use something as important as religion as a tool like this, especially in family matters.

Theories? All I can tell is that this country is held in thrall by the psych industry. Acting as a sort of secular religion with all and the only answers as to how to behave etc. Look at all the self-help books and billions spent every year on therapy. I've found psych as practiced now is really about using language that controls people. The judges love sending people to shrinks (my guess, I don't know) because it covers their rear in that they've then done all they can to make sure people are rehabilitated to some politically/socially correct standard(s). Of their own choosing, of course. And it's all "scientific" using the best available practices. And yes, it helps to control people, which is at the end of the day one of the two primary motivators -money being the other- for people who aren't terribly developed as human beings. Couple that with the intellectual and moral arrogance that's part and parcel of both lawyers and shrinks and there you have it: an unholy alliance. They want to "infantilize" people and keep them under control. Just my guess, there's obviously more to all this as well, but I think this is part of the picture.