Parental rights in WA

[WinsomeCreek]

Hi. I’m a lurker/reader (esp when searching for new curriculum) but not a regular poster, but this seems important enough to mention and hopefully get people talking about. If this should be in chat instead of general, sorry. If you live in WA state you know that we have it pretty good as far as homeschool options. We also have reasonable rights as parents to make decisions for our kids on other issues. I read about a new bill last night, went to sleep and actually woke up feeling more and more uneasy about it.

 

Under current state law, family, grandparents for example, can sue for visitation rights if parents are unfit, divorced or if even one parent feels that visitation is warranted. House bill 1506 was read last week and is going to executive session next week. It repeals the current ability of fit parents to decide visitation for their kids, but even more disturbingly, allows ANYONE with a relationship to the child– related or not- to sue for visitation and grants the state the power over FIT parents to make that decision. Please read this for yourself if you are a WA resident. I am so very much not an alarmist. But after reading HB 1506 and a few hours of sleep I feel that this is an uncomfortably slippery slope. If parents are fit, I mean the state determines that they are competent, loving parents acting in the best interests of their children, then legally, formally saying that the state has the better judgment and power to decide who spends time with those kids seems…wrong.

 

We immunize, but wouldn’t this suggest that the state could make a better decision over whether a fit parent could opt not to, you know, just for that issue. We use a virtual academy. But wouldn’t this set a precedent that otherwise competent, fit parents take second fiddle to the state in deciding what’s best educationally for the child? I fully get that in a contentious family environment or divorce or for many reasons the courts have a place in intervening regarding visitation. It is the ballsy scope of allowing anyone with a relationship to the child to petition and the granting of the legal decisive power to the state over the rights of fit parents. Anyway, please read, let me know what you think. More importantly, let them know what you think. Ugh, do I just need to go back to sleep? If you are in a state that has such a law, can you offer an opinion too? Is it harder to homeschool or otherwise do you feel like as a parent you have fewer rights? Am I woefully out of touch with my parental rights? Thanks (I am def not a troll… just don’t think I have much to say). I haven't posted a link before so if this doesn't work, let me know.

http://apps.leg.wa.g...=1506&year=2013

[Legomom]

nm

[Anne in CA]

I think Washington State is having some issues with parents rights already. I have a friend who was forced to move from WA when the school her dd attended demanded all her medical records. My friend's dd had missed several days of school due to bad migraines and all of them were excuses by her physician. The school nurse insisted that she needed to see if the girl REALLY should have missed school. The school took my friend to court to get her dd's medical records. My friend moved back to Oregon rather than relinquish them while she was appealing the decision. Yuck.

[LucyStoner]

The bill that is up now (HB 1506) is a grandparents backed bill. We do not presently have such a law in Washington State, though it has been pushed for years.

 

http://www.columbian.com/news/2013/feb/06/state-lawmakers-weigh-non-parental-visitation-righ/

 

Summary and purpose with link to actual text of the bill:

 

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1506&year=2013#documents

 

I personally support this (read the bill- it's not ANYONE who can seek and be granted visitation.) Being able to seek something through a court is not the same as having an absolute right...judges would weigh both sides, including factoring in the children's best interest. There are times when such visitation is absolutely in the best interest of the child, especially considering the very high bar to get someone declared unfit as a parent. I know a grandmother who was denied access to her grandkids because her addict (but functional) daughter wanted to use the child to extort money.

[FairProspects]

I'm still uncomfortable with this bill, even if it is about grandparents. Some of us have parents or in-laws who are very anti-homeschooling. I see too many ways this could be used against homeschooling parents if the grandparents disagreed with some of the decisions of the parents.

[stansclan89]

I'm still uncomfortable with this bill, even if it is about grandparents. Some of us have parents or in-laws who are very anti-homeschooling. I see too many ways this could be used against homeschooling parents if the grandparents disagreed with some of the decisions of the parents.

 

 

And how many judges have we heard about that are anti-homeschooling to support the grandparents that are anti-homeschooling?

[WinsomeCreek]

^{My goodness, did I blow this. I clearly needed to pay attention to the guidelines here. I am so sorry for starting a political discussion. I had not noticed that this was a no-no. I didn’t even think about it since I usually am here looking intently for material reviews. If this is a violation- my apologies and delete it please.}

 

 

^{I don't have an issue with grandparents' or third party right btw, but it should be addressed by lowering the bar for defining "unfit" then. And I did read the bill. Yes, anyone with a relationship with the child can sue. I had wondered if anyone else was thinking about where this might go.}

[MinivanMom]

I'm not in WA, but I read the bill. The bill does not use the word "grandparent" at anytime. It most certainly does allow pretty much anyone to sue for custody. I also couldn't see where the burden of proof would be put on the petitioner as required by Troxel v. Granville (the WA case that originally got many grandparent rights laws thrown out as unconstitutional). Maybe it's not quite as broadly written as the original WA law that was thrown out by the Supreme Court in Troxel, but it still allows almost anyone to petition the court for custody.

 

From the Judiciary Committee Bill Analysis:

 

"A person may petition for visitation if the person has established an ongoing and substantial

relationship with the child. An ongoing and substantial relationship means the person and the

child have had a relationship with substantial continuity for at least one year through interaction,

companionship, and mutuality, without expectation of financial compensation."

 

By that standard my next-door-neighbor, my kids' volunteer sunday school teachers, and several family friends could all seek court-enforced visitation with my children. Now, obviously the intended target of a bill like this is grandparents, but the bill itself does not require that the "third party" seeking visitation be a grandparent or even a relative. It's written pretty broadly. I always thought WA was a pretty crunchy, liberal state. What is the deal with WA and crazy grandparent rights laws? From the article that a poster linked:

 

"The main proponents of the bill are grandparents who have been cut off from their grandchildren.

Ruth Wade, 69, of Lacey, said her greatest regret is that she has not been allowed into the life of her great-granddaughter.

“I have missed out on all of her firsts, and unless this bill is passed I feel I might miss out on her first kiss, her first date, her fist high school prom and all these things,†Wade said."

 

I laughed and laughed at this. I loved my great-grandmother, but she wasn't a part of any of my "firsts" in life. She certainly wasn't a part of my first kiss.

[NicAnn]

Oh my. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. As the daughter of a very emotional unstable, hurtful woman...this bill terrifies me. I have not allowed my mother or father, or abusive step father, into my life for many years. I can certainly see them attempting to get visitation of my children, simply out of spite.

Now the language states that they must have evidence of a relationship, but sadly, laws like these are not always followed. It

s entirely likely that a "non-parent" could gain rights to a child through this bill.

I did not see any language requiring that the parent be "unfit". If I missed that, could someone direct me to it.