When Government Intervention Becomes Excessive:
The Rights of the State Versus the Rights of the Parents

by Dawn Michelle Irons, BSW
April 1996

The Social Problem:

As you listen to the political arena you hear the heart cry of the American people crying out “Less government interventions into our lives!!!” This has been a heated debate throughout history. Just what is proper intervention of the government into the family life? When does that become intrusive and cross the line of being unconstitutional? Who determines and defines what is “proper intervention”?

Many people believe that government has crossed the sacred "line in the sand" when it comes to family life and parental authority over their own children. Government and state agencies have been given authority to remove children from homes first and ask questions later. Although state guidelines say that there must be "observable and material impairment in the child's growth, development, or psychological functioning." (DPRS, 1995). A San Diego grand jury found that in child abuse cases in that county alone, family freedoms and parental rights were violated in over 300 cases. They reported that 35 to 70 percent of the children who were removed from their homes by Child Protective Services "should never have been removed from their parental homes." (San Diego Union Tribune, 1992.). The ultimate issue of the sanctity of the family is at stake.

Historically, America is a nation that was built on the foundation that government can in no right usurp the fundamental rights of the people. The earliest colonists of the United States made this quite clear when they declared their independence from England in 1776. Our nation's very own Declaration of Independence states the proper role of government in the lives of the people:

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to altar or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem likely to effect their Safety and Happiness ....... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." (U.S. Congress, 1776.)

In 1923, the Meyer v. Nebraska (262 U.S. 309, 399, 43 S. Ct. 625, 1923) became the first case in which the U.S. Supreme court recognized the rights of the parents to control the upbringing and education of their children. The same court in 1925 (Pierce v. Society of Sisters) struck down a state law forcing parents to send their children to public schools because it violated the right of the parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children. The Texas court of appeals in 1991 in Gibson Vs. J.W.T. specifically upheld "the rights and privileges of parenthood are indeed fundamental." A later court decision stated "the parental interest in the upbringing of the child is a fundamental liberty which is protected by the fourteenth amendment". (Texas Home School Coalition, 1995). The judiciary of the United States as well as state Supreme Courts have long voted in favor of fundamental parental rights.

It is hard to pin point the specific period of time when government intervention seemed to run rampantly out of control in regards to the family. There is a definite period of time in the 1960's, during the Johnson Administration's War on Poverty, that seems to play as a key turning point. The War on Poverty started out with good intentions, but it began a time of government programs taking on a large role in the life of the family.

Unfortunately, this began a disintegration process in many families. Due to federal regulations and state requirements, many families could not receive AFDC or other assistance programs if there were two parents to the family unit. This requirement encouraged the fathers to withdraw from the family structure in order for the family to receive financial assistance. Social Workers have always held to the tenant that the breakdown of the family is the source of almost all social problems. But contrary to this belief, these social programs encouraged the breakdown of the family unit.

A major concern of many families is the quality of their children's education. 1965 saw a greater influence of the federal role in education. Lyndon Johnson launched an extensive federal welfare-state approach to education in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. As a result of this legislation, federal spending on education went from $478 million to $1.646 billion in a single year. One of LBJ's congressional leaders, Carl Perkins stated, "If we can reduce the cost of crime, delinquency, unemployment and welfare in the future by well-directing spending on education now, certainly, on this account alone, we will have made a sound investment." (Farris, 1995.) Unfortunately, thirty years later, crime is higher, delinquency is rampant and welfare payouts are at an all time high. Was the government intervention really effective or just intrusive?

There are varying opinions even among politicians and legislators as to what is the right of the government and what is the right of the parents. The First Lady of the United States, Hillary Clinton, has stated, "The basic rationale of depriving people of rights in a dependency relationship is that certain individuals are incapable and undeserving of the right to take care of themselves and consequently need social institutions specifically designed to safeguard their position. It is presumed that under the circumstances society is doing what is best for the individuals." She went on to describe that "dependency relationships" included family, marriage, slavery, and the Indian reservation system. (Harvard Education Review, 1973, p.493).

Dan Morales, the Attorney General of Texas was quoted as saying in the appeal of Maxwell vs. Pasadena I.S.D. that "Parents do not have a fundamental right to direct the education and upbringing of their children." (Texas Home school Coalition, 1995). Former President, George Bush had a slightly different viewpoint, " I believe that children need mothers and fathers, not "Big Brother Bureaucracy" , and the bond between the parent and child is sacred and is fundamental."( The Freedom Voice, 1992.)

The involvement of government intervention into the family can range from the obscure to the sublime. In 1978, in the matter of Ray v. New York Social Services (408 N.Y.S. 2d 737, 1978) a social worker removed a child from her home after a school guidance counselor examined the first grader who seemed hyperactive. The counselor recommended psychotherapy. The mother took the child to 4 sessions of treatment, but stopped after concluding that the child's problem was due to the school and not some personal or emotional cause. Also the therapy was not helping her daughter. The child was removed from the home and the court stated that they had the right to intervene whenever "medical intervention will have a beneficial effect." The court ruled the mother guilty of child neglect. To some, this may seem like a rather obscure example depending on the severity of the hyperactivity, which we do not know. A more outrageous example is that of Sampson v. New York Social Services (65 misc. 2d 658, 317 NYS 2d 641 fam. ct. 1970). In this case, Kevin age 15, had "elephant man's disease" which caused a large fold of skin to grow over the side of his face. The mother wanted to wait until the child was 21 before permitting surgery. Doctors testified that the surgery was very risky and offered no cure , and that waiting would decrease, not increase the risk. The Judge overruled the mother's decision and charged her with "neglect" and ordered that the series of operations be done, even without parental consent.

These are just a few of the cases that highlight the abuse of governmental powers in regards to the family. These cases do not in any way deny the fact of legitimate cases of abuse where children are maimed and murdered by their own parents. These cases do show that the rights of the parents and the rights of the government have met in a head on collision and are at complete odds with each other. This paper will attempt to discuss the issue of when government intervention becomes excessive.

Issues of Human Behavior in the Social Environment

The family is the basic unit of social structure. Families define and shape the individuals that are a part of the family unit. Parents teach their children their values, and teach them a moral value of what is right and what is wrong. Parents set boundaries as to what is acceptable behavior and what will not be tolerated. These are basic and fundamental rights given to parents. They are recognized by the highest court in America to be the responsibility of the parents, not the job of the government.

The sanctity of the family is at risk within our current social service and governmental system. An alarming number of false allegations of child abuse have actually been prosecuted and indicted in California courts. After careful investigations by a grand jury, many cases were dismissed, thrown out of court, and children returned to the parents. What has gone wrong with the system? Why has the value and sanctity of the family been reduced to a value judgment and the gut level instinct of a social worker? Such power has been given to the social service system in regards to the family without a proper check and balance system.

In the 1980's, the expertise of social workers began to be highly recognized in the areas of child custody and child sexual abuse cases. More recently, though, courts are more likely to question the qualifications of social workers than those of psychiatrists and psychologists. Courts are also critical of the nature of social worker's testimonies, as they are with others who give “expert opinions” about sexually abused children. (Mason, 1992).

The federal policy in 1992 instituted public law 96-272 which mandated the prevention of unnecessary separation of children by providing social services to the family. (Samantrai, 1992). Although the federal policy changed, not all states have incorporated this change into their individual practices with families. On April 20, 1992, the San Diego County Grand Jury made a report to Honorable John Burton of the 16th district family court. The following are actual statements from their findings:

"The jury has serious concerns that these abuses (by social workers) have seriously eroded public confidence in CPS's ability to fairly protect children and their families. If the legislature does not approve legislation to control social worker abuse of public confidence the jury fears a public backlash which may seriously impact society's ability to protect children.

We seek legislative changes in the immunity provisions governing social workers and others involved in the child abuse system. This may be the most important recommendation of the jury because that single change carries the potential remedy a great many of the other problems found in the system. The jury believes the current system of absolute immunity is the single greatest deterrent to change. Social workers who perform their task in good faith will have nothing to fear and still be protected by qualified immunity. The jury has witnessed the unfortunate truth of a statement made by a trial attorney within the fourth district court of appeals. "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Absolute immunity is absolute power." The jury was hesitant to reach the conclusion that absolute immunity must go, but having seen the results of this immunity in the lives of the citizenry, we adamantly believe it must.”

The Grand Jury report went on to say:

“The San Diego Grand Jury has:

* Seen episodes of social worker perjury in court records, and indeed, even in court testimony.

* heard testimonies by attorneys and court-appointed therapists that social workers have threatened to have them removed from court approved lists if they failed to adhere to the social worker's recommendations

* heard testimonies that social workers have threatened to remove additional children from families who fail to exactly follow social workers recommendations even when there is no issue regarding that child.

* heard testimonies that even repeated adverse reports by professionals about individual social workers have resulted in a failure to discipline

* heard testimonies from attorneys that when faced with the most blatant abuses of power, there are still no remedies for their clients

* heard therapists testify that social workers have threatened to ruin their careers with a report that they have "accommodated the denial" of a client, or questioned a "true finding"

* seen evidence of social workers conspiring to place children for adoption with their own (social worker’s) family members even while reunification with natural family was in process

* seen evidence of social workers placing children in particular foster homes which would render the opportunity to reunify non-existent

* read numerous Social Study reports filled with innuendo, half truths and lies

* seen evidence of social workers so obsessed with molestation scenarios that they were unable to maintain even a semblance of objectivity" (San Diego Grand Jury, 1992). “

There has definitely been an overall sense of mistrust by the public in regards to child protective services and government intervention into the family. One might think this case in California is an isolated incident, but that is far from the truth. In January 1991 Denise Perrigo lived outside of Syracuse. She phoned a local community center to find the phone number of the La Leche League, which is a breastfeeding advocacy and support group. She wanted to know if it was normal to become aroused while nursing. If she had been able to contact the support group she would have found that many women experience such feelings. She never reached the La Leche League, but instead was referred to a rape crisis center, where the volunteer equated Mrs. Perrigo's question and the fact that she was nursing a two year old child to sexual abuse. The volunteer called the child abuse hotline, Mrs. Perrigo spent the night in jail and her daughter was put into protective custody. Criminal charges were dismissed immediately, but CPS filed charges of sexual abuse and neglect with the family court. The family court judge ruled that no abuse or neglect had occurred and ordered that the child be returned to the mother. Instead of returning the child, CPS filed new charges in front of a new judge for the next day. The new allegations were that Mrs. Perrigo had inserted foreign objects into the child's vagina; which was later determined to be the child's description of having her temperature taken rectally.

By November, the new judge had ruled that no abuse had taken place, but there had been neglect. The judge cited that Mrs. Perrigo's failure to wean the child sooner was neglectful as well as exposing the child to CPS investigations by making her phone call about her breastfeeding question in the first place. (The decision is being appealed.)

There is a social stigma to nursing an older child, but does the government really have a right to determine just how long is "long enough" between a mother/child nursing relationship? The international average length of nursing a child is 4.2 years, Americans tend to wean their babies between 12 and 24 months, which is an average of 2 years sooner than the international average. Many Mothers won't nurse toddlers or even nurse publicly at all due to the public reaction and fear of someone calling it abuse. (Associated Press, 1995).

Along with the stigma of breastfeeding is the controversial issue of spanking your child. Who determines what is proper discipline for our children? According to landmark supreme court cases, the parents get to determine how to direct the raising and upbringing of their children. Although these cases have made precedents, they are constantly under barrage by different human rights groups and major lobbying powers. The American Academy of Pediatrics (a subdivision of the American Medical Association) and the National Education Association are two of the strongest lobbying groups trying to influence legislative powers. Together they have teamed up to change public opinion and laws concerning corporal punishment:

"The AAP and the NEA are strongly opposed to spanking. Spanking is on its way out in most of the world, but if you feel you must spank your child, use these following guidelines:

1. Hit only with an open hand.

2. Hit only the buttocks, legs, or hands.

3. Give only one swat, that is good enough to change behavior.

4.     Use spanking no more than once a day.

5. Putting a child in time-out or in a comer is much more civilized" (Shmitt, 1994).

With all of these groups and abuses within the social structure constantly defeating the "fundamental rights" of the parents, it is no surprise that the family is falling apart under the pressure of government intrusion. We've seen government agencies tell parents they can only nurse a child until a certain age (which is acceptable to the government), we've seen blatant lies and misuses of their power by social workers with personal agendas, we've seen major lobbying powers telling parents that spanking is uncivilized. Everything that is sacred within the family is under attack by various governing agencies, even the right to choose how to educate your children is in the line of fire.

In 1985, the Leeper vs. Arlington Case was a class action suit filed by home school parents to bring relief from the prosecution of compulsory attendance laws in Texas. The law suit asked the courts to declare that home schools were "private schools." In 1987 the court ruled in favor of the parents, however the state of Texas appealed the case all the way to the Texas Supreme Court. That court's ruling was a unanimous (9-0) decision upholding home schools as private schools. Currently, the State of Texas has filed a motion for a rehearing that is still pending. The government is still trying to usurp the parental authority of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children even in the face of opposition by precedented Supreme Court rulings in favor of "fundamental parental rights." (Texas Home school Coalition, 1995).

The entire integrity of the family is under assault. The National Child Rights Alliance believes that civil rights apply to all people, including minor children. This organization has drawn up a document called the "Youth Bill of Rights". According to this document these rights are to be given to minor children:

"The Right to Liberty: No child shall be forced to live in any household against their will - this includes biologic as well as foster and adoptive households. No child shall be institutionalized against their will without due process rights.

The Right to Survival: All children have the right to adequate food, shelter, and medical care and a healthy environment. NCRA supports a free national healthcare system for children which is not dependent on parental income or parental consent.

The Right to Education: All children have a right to free education - including college and technical schools at the public expense.

The Right to Free Speech: All children have a right to free speech. This includes both in personal expression and in school-based and public media.

The Right to an Attorney: All children have the right to legal representation whereby the attorney acts as an attorney for - not guardian of - their clients."

If it were true, that these are rights that children should have, then this would be the total breakdown of parental influence or parental rights to raise their own child. Parents would not be able to ground or to discipline their child against their will because you cannot force a child to stay where he does not want to be! This is anarchy, not advocacy for children!!! Granted, this document has no legal or binding powers towards parents, but that is not so for the U.N. Treaty on the Rights of the Child, which will be discussed in detail in the Policy section of this paper.

Social Policy Issues

Policy issues surrounding the problem of government intervention into the family are numerous. They range from state legislation and bills to U.S. congressional bills, to National Policy signed into law by President Clinton, to an International Treaty which the U.S. is very close to ratifying. All of which have a tremendous impact on the life of the family.

1989 brought about the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. This legislation has yet to be ratified by the U.S. congress, but it is only 9 votes away from being signed into law. In Missouri vs. Holland, the Supreme Court held that a treaty made by the president, with a 2/3 senate approval, is under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, section 2, which makes the treaty the "Supreme Law of the Land".

This means that the U.N. treaty would become legally binding in all 50 states. All other laws pertaining to education and parental rights (which would conflict with the treaty) would be subject to invalidation. The United States Constitution would be secondary by law and the treaty the primary law of the land. (NCHE, 1995).

Exactly what is at stake if this treaty gets signed into law? Great Britain signed and ratified the treaty. A judgment issued by the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child have cited the country and put them in violation of the law on these counts:

* Home schooling would be banned unless the child consents (British judgment, p.3).

* Public school parents could not withdraw their children from sex education without the child's consent (British judgment, p.3).

* Parents are banned from spanking their children (British judgment, p.4)

* Juvenile offenders cannot be incarcerated for more than a few days, even for crimes like murder, rape, or carjacking. (British judgment, p4.)

* Private schools are banned from spanking children (British judgment, p4).

Once again we see massive government intervention into the family. What is more frightening about this policy is that it is an international treaty which would supercede our own country's existing laws on the fundamental rights of parents. Article 3 of the treaty states that in all actions concerning children, the courts, social services, and bureaucrats are empowered to regulate families based on their subjective determination of what is "best for the child." The authority of the parent is usurped and power is given to the states and ultimately to the United Nations.

On a national level there is the Parental Rights and Responsibility Act (H.R. 1946). This bill was submitted by the 104th congress. Under section 2a-4 the bill states, "some decisions of the federal and state courts have treated the right of parents not as a fundamental right but as a non-fundamental right, resulting in an improper standard of judicial review being applied to government conduct that adversely affects parental rights and prerogatives; (5) parents face increasing intrusions into their legitimate decisions and prerogatives by government agencies in situations that do not involve traditional understandings of abuse or neglect but simply are a conflict of parenting philosophies..."

The bill goes on to outline the terms of what is the parents rights and responsibilities. They include directing or providing for the education of the child, health care decisions, disciplining the child (including reasonable corporal punishment), and directing or providing for the religious training of the child. The bill prohibits federal, state and local government from interfering with or usurping the rights of the parents to direct the upbringing of the child. (H.R. 1946).

In 1994 President Clinton signed into law the Educate America Act, commonly known as Goals 2000. These education reforms fail to include the parents into the decision making process, but instead have brought forth a "nationalized education curriculum." It has already been presented the rise of federal spending in education since 1965 (especially in administrative costs). With the passing of Goals 2000 there have now been added many new federal bureaucracies into the department of education. They include: National Education Goals Panel, National Education Standards and Improvement Council, and the National Skills Standard Board.

Ever since the establishment of the federal office of education, the government has insisted it would not become involved in writing and establishing the curricula. Unfortunately through time, that standard has been compromised and with the implementation of Goals 2000, it has been completely overthrown. (Bauer, 1995). In 1994 the National Center for History in the Schools, a federally funded project at the University of California at Los Angeles, published the nations first "National Standards for History." These standards determine on a national level what should be taught on the K-12 grade levels. There is an implied threat to schools who don't adopt these standards to lose their federal funding and being deemed as a "substandard" school.

Of the 31 standards set forth in the 4 volume set, not one mentions our national constitution. George Washington makes a brief appearance, but is never recognized as the nation's first president. The founding of an environmental group "Sierra Club", and the National Organization for Women (NOW) are both mentioned, but no mention at all of the first gathering of the U.S. Congress. Robert E. Lee is left out along with Thomas Edison, the Wright brothers, and Daniel Webster. Joseph McCarthy and McCarthyism is mentioned 19 times, the Gettysburg Address only once, and Paul Revere not at all. One might call this a whirlwind of "political correctness." (Bauer, 1995).

The policy issues surrounding government intrusion into the family spirals on down even into local government. With all the policy relating to what parents rights are and what government rights are it is easy to get confused. Parents are told they can't spank their children and be civilized people, they cannot force a child to do anything against his will, they cannot even present the child moral or religious teachings without the child's consent. In light of all of that legislation, the following piece of legislation seems particularly amusing. A representative of the House of Texas introduced a bill into congress "relating to criminal responsibility of a parent for the child's delinquent conduct; providing a penalty." (Cuellar ,1995)

What is a parent to do? Parents are told they can't train, teach or discipline a child against that child's will, but is expected to take criminal responsibility for the child's delinquent behavior. Well, government can't have it both ways! Either parents DO have a fundamental right and a responsibility to raise their kids or they don't. And if government chooses that parents DON'T have that right, then parents can in no way be held responsible for the outcome of that child's behavior. A parent can't be held responsible for what it had no part in helping to create. If the government persists in trying to remove parental rights , they are creating their own monsters of delinquents to deal with at a later date.

Another issue of policy is the extreme lobbying power of the National Education Association and the resolutions that were passed at the 1995 convention of the NEA. A few of these resolutions that impact the rights of the parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children are listed below:

"A-27. Deleterious Programs. The NEA believes that the following practices are detrimental to public education and must be eliminated: privatization, performance contracting, tax credits for tuition vouchers to private and parochial schools.

B-8. Sexual Orientation Education. The association supports the development of positive plans that lead to the effective ongoing training programs for the purpose of identifying and eliminating sexual orientation stereotyping in the educational setting. Such programs should attend to:

a. Accurate portrayal of the roles and contributions of gays, lesbians, and bisexual people throughout history, with the acknowledgement of their sexual orientation.

b. The acceptance of diverse sexual orientation and the awareness of stereotyping whenever sexuality and/or tolerance of diversity is taught.

d. Support for the celebration of a Lesbian and Gay History Month as a means of acknowledging the contributions of homosexuals throughout history.

B-35. Sexual Education. ...Teachers and health professionals must be qualified to teach in this area and must be legally protected from censorship and lawsuits.

B-63. Home schooling. The NEA believes that home schooling programs cannot provide the student with a comprehensive education experience. The association believes that if parental preference home schooling study occurs, students must meet all state requirements. Instructors (parents) must be licensed by appropriate state education licensure agencies and must use a curriculum approved by the state.

I-13. Family Planning. The NEA supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom. We further urge the implementation of community based family planning clinics that will provide intensive counseling by trained personnel."

These are just a few of the issues that usurp a parents fundamental right to direct the education and upbringing of their children. If a parents only choice is public school there needs to be an "opt out" choice so that parents have more control into what their children are being taught and without penalty to the child. If these issues are to be taught in the public schools they need to be offered on an elective basis - not required.

Issues of Research

There has been much research done on the areas in which government has intervened. There have been studies done on home schooled education compared to private and public education and the academic outcome of each. There have also been financial studies into the department of education and a comparison was made between academic performance and federal spending since 1965.

There is an unfair bias among many social workers as to their opinions of the "quality" of education that a home schooled child receives. A study was done by Dr. Rhonda Galloway, professor of English at Bob Jones University. The study began with the basic assumption that the skills needed in a college level English course are representative of the skills needed to successfully complete other college level courses. Dr. Galloway's sample consisted of 180 first time, non transfer students at Bob Jones University. 60 students were home school graduates, another 60 students were graduates from private Christian universities, and the last 60 students were public school graduates. To measure the students performance she analyzed the students' ACT English subtest scores, ACT composite scores, and achievement in college English (as measured by tests, quizzes, and research papers.) Her findings showed that there was no significant statistical difference except in one category. That category was the ACT English scores and the home schooled students had the highest scores.

Some of the limitations of the study were that she did not include the curriculum that was used, or the educational background of the home, public, or private school teachers. The study reflected only the students who participated in the study and is not a definitive statement on the performance of all home, public, or private school educations. The study also noted that home school students performed well above the national average on all achievement tests, usually upwards of the 80th percentile. The study revealed that home schooled students did as well as, if not better than conventionally schooled students in the public and private sector. Galloway credits this performance success to the fact that prior to college, students were not grouped according to age. The students were used to communicating to a variety of age groups in the home, church, and home school associations. In Galloway's opinion, home schooled students were better equipped for adapting than their conventionally educated peers. "They had much more variety in their social interaction." (Home school Helper, Vol 6, No. 2).

The Smedley study done at Radford University in 1992 stated that "home school students usually have better social skills than their public school counterparts." The Shyers study done at the University of Florida in 1992 concluded that "home schooled students have consistently fewer behavior problems" and "a child's social development depends more on adult contact and less on contact with other children than previously thought." (H.O.P.E., 1994). Due to the academic superiority of home educated students over public educated students, many Ivy league colleges as well as state funded colleges actively recruit home schooled students. (H.O.P.E, 1994).

There has also been significant statistical research into the federal involvement in education since 1965. Research shows that the per pupil cost for elementary and secondary education has risen 56.6% in real spending since 1972. (From $3,393 in 1972 to $5,313 in 1994 - figures are adjusted for inflation to show 1994 dollars.). Administration and overhead costs have risen 80.6% in real spending (from $1,792 in 1972 to $3,260 in 1974.) Out of every new dollar spent on education since 1972, 76 cents went to administrative and overhead costs and only 24 cents went to the teachers.

One financial advisor suggests that if we eliminate federal funding and control administrative costs to rise at the same rate as teacher's pay, the schools would have an additional $7,940.70 per classroom every single year. Although spending has definitely increased, the performance level of students has drastically decreased. Graduation rates are down 1.3% since 1980 (the year the federal role in education was elevated to Department status.) Today, only 71.2 % of students enrolled in the 9^th grade will graduate from high school. SAT scores are down 35 points since 1972 (on a test taken only by those planning on attending college.)

In 1992 only 24% of America's 4th graders were reading at a level considered "proficient or better." Only 23% of the nations 8th graders met this proficiency test in math. This outcome is not exactly the great expectation Americans had when the Johnson administration said, " well-directed spending on education now will reduce the cost of crime, delinquency, unemployment and welfare in the future."(Farris, 1994)

Practice Issues

It is quite obvious to see the implications of a social worker's practice with individuals and with families concerning the social problem of government intervention into the family. One has to wonder if the social service system can really offer any solutions to the problem or are they the main source of the problem itself? The ethical issue of this question will be addressed in the values and ethics portion of this paper.

As a direct result of the social problem itself, many support groups have surfaced to help families deal with the oppressive nature of the governmental and social service system. Some of these groups include local home school support groups, The Home School Legal Defense Association, La Leche League breastfeeding and advocacy group, legal groups to help defend false allegations of child abuse and parents who have had children wrongly removed from home, and even support groups to warn and educate families about the dangers of social workers and their intrusion into family life.

As far as the community is concerned the general public opinion of the social worker has been reduced greatly and public confidence in CPS has been has been shaken. The profession as a whole has become something to be feared among the average law abiding family. And in turn, many people truly question the legitimacy of actual child abuse cases. The San Diego County Grand Jury had a very valid point in stating its concern that the public opinion could drastically change society's ability to protect true cases of child abuse simply because the public's confidence in the system has been shaken.

Many organizations have emerged from this social problem. Among the grassroots organizations are the Christian Coalition, Home Oriented Private Education, and Focus on the Family. Professional organizations that have emerged to counterbalance the conservative viewpoint are the National Education Association and the National Child Rights Alliance.

Issues of Social Work Values

The values by which we perform our professional practice comes from the National Association of Social Work Ethics. These are the standards by which we practice, or should practice. In light of the social problem of excessive government intervention into the family, the blatant abuses of the social service system (or individual social workers within the system) needs to be examined by our own professional code of ethics.

The NASW Code of Ethics states, "The social worker should not participate in, condone, or be associated with fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation." The San Diego County Grand Jury found over 300 cases of this breech of ethics, and not once were any of the social workers censured or reprimanded in any way. The Code also states, "The social worker should not engage in any action that violates or diminishes the civil and legal rights of clients." An example of this violation of ethics is when a social worker removed an eighth grade girl from her home because she "objected to her parents rules which were reasonably enforced." The parents had grounded their daughter because she wanted to smoke marijuana and sleep with her boyfriend. This case went all the way to the Supreme Court of Washington where the court upheld the decision to have the child removed from parental custody. [In re Sumey, 94 Wash. 2d 757, 621 P. 2d 108 (1980)]. The social worker who initially removed the child had violated the professional code of ethics by interfering with the parents legal and civil right to direct the raising and upbringing of their child.

In section VI-P(l) of the code of ethics: Promoting the General Welfare it states that "The social worker should act to prevent and eliminate discrimination against any person or group on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, religion, national origin, marital status, political belief, mental or physical handicap, or any other preference, personal characteristic, or condition."

It is a sad testimony to the social work profession that the "Home school Legal Defense Association" even exists. This organization exists on the principle of defending the legal and civil rights of parents to direct the education of their children. According to our code of ethics as social workers, we should be standing in the gap for these people instead of against them. These people are definitely discriminated against, often times due to their religious beliefs. An anonymous college professor of Social Work, at a Christian University once stated, "My main problem with home schoolers is that they produce socially inept people to face the real world. Usually their whole education is based solely on religious principals." What a sad testimony to the profession that even Social Work Educators are promoting the discrimination of civil rights and religious freedoms on a people that are being severely oppressed by government intervention, simply because their (the social work educator's) personal values conflict with the ethical responsibility we have to defend these people.

Another ethical issue that needs to be discussed is the alliances of the National and International associations of social workers. In 1994, the United Nations held a Geneva Conference on the world issue of Human Rights and Social Work. During this conference new guidelines for social work education were drawn up and agreed upon by the U.N. Council on Social Work. In the manual it states, " throughout this manual the term "human rights" is used to convey an idea of the totality of rights as identified by the United Nations." There is a definite conflict of interests here. When the U.N. starts giving a global definition of what "human rights" are, then our own National Standards of human rights become subject to the Global Government. Not only is there a problem of excessive government intervention into the family on the National level, we have seen the problem that Great Britain has encountered by signing the U.N. Treaty on the Rights of the Child on a Global Government level. As social workers we have an obligation to defend the legal and civil rights of the citizens in our communities. This will be severely compromised if the NASW agrees to the U.N. standards of human rights. There is too much government involvement as it is, we don't need to elevate it to a global level of complication.

Human Diversity Issues

Not only is government intervention into the family a major social problem in the United States, it stretches to a diverse group of people and countries. I will focus on the problem in China. In China, the life of the family is totally government regulated. The country has a forced abortion policy due to their “one child per family law” The government monitors women's menstrual cycles so it can identify unapproved pregnancies and abort them. Historically, China is a country that has murdered tens of millions of female infants. The sex ratio in larger regions of China is 64% male.

Recently, the Clinton administration approved of U.S. support for a conference on women's rights in China. The administration has also granted "most favored nation" status to this country as well. This is all very sobering in light of all the drastic human rights violations of this country that we would financially support them and give them a favored nation status. (Dobson, 1995).

Impact of the Problem on Society

Projections and conclusions

The impact of this problem on society is the attack on the family and basic parental rights. If something does not change in the public's perception of social services, especially CPS, there will be an increasing problem of being able to intervene in true cases of abuse and neglect. The public's confidence has been drastically shaken in the system's ability to determine legitimate cases of abuse.

There does need to be a proper check and balance system of a social worker's power. A strict adherence to the Code of ethics needs to be a must (regardless of personal values.) We in no way need "absolute immunity" if we are practicing in good faith. We cannot continue to inflict our personal values onto our clients. The heart of social work is client self-determination and empowerment. We need to be ready to serve any group of people that is being discriminated against for any reason. Meet the clients where they are, not where we want them to be. Social workers are not empowered to solve the social ills of the world, we are empowered to help the clients learn self-sufficiency, not dependency on us or the system.

Something has got to change. The integrity of the social work profession has been greatly compromised and the public seems to view social services more in fear than in hopes of seeking help. Not all social workers have compromised their values and ethics of profession, but it only takes a few "bad apples" to destroy the integrity and good intentions of the whole profession. We need some serious damage control in view of public perception of what social work services really do.

In short, something has got to change. In the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. "I have a dream ...... to bring about social change for the better.

Associated Press. January 1993. "Breastfeeding mother loses her daughter, 2, for a year." archives.
Bauer, Gary L. Family Research Council, February 8, 1995.
Harvard Education Review, "Children Under the Law", November 1973.
Dobson, James. Focus on the Family, August 1995.
Farris, Michael, "It's Time to Abolish the Federal Role in Education". March/April 1995.
Grand Jury, San Diego County. Letter to Judge Burton, April 20, 1992.
Mason, Mary Ann. Social Work: 37(l), 30-34, January 1992.
The Freedom Voice, 1992. Lewis Pitts, "Sorting Truth from Fiction"
Samantrai, Krishna, Social Work: 37(4), p. 295, July 1992.
Schmitt, B. D., "Your Child's Health" Bantam Books, 1994.
United States Congress, H.R. 1946 : Parental Rights Act, 1995.
United States Congress, U.S. Constitution, 1787.
United States Congress, Declaration of Independence, 1776.
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, General Assembly, December 1989. 
Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, Legal Definitions, 1995.
Home Oriented Private Education, Texas Handbook, 1994.
The Home school Helper, Bob Jones University Press, December, 1995.
Home school Legal Defense Association, Special Report, March/April 1995.
House Bill 745, Texas Legislature, Rep. Cuellar, 1995.
United Nations Geneva Conference, 1994, "Human Rights and Social Work"
NASW, Code of Ethics, 1995.
National Center for Home Education, Issues Alert, 1995.
National Education Association, 1995 Resolution