Re: CT Supreme Court Admits Parenting Classes don't help children

"Dan Sullivan" <dsulldan@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:52a6db5f-8a20-438a-91fc-89ef77d400f3@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 16, 11:59 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> October 21, 2008 CT Supreme Court Admits Parenting Classes Don't Help
> Children
>
> Parents don't have to use anything in the classes.
>
> Staff Writer Connecticut DCF Watch Hartford, CT
>
> Even though the Supreme Court ruled that the state can impose
> parenting classes in cases of divorce without probable cause or
> evidence that the child is impacted in anyway.

But if one thing they learn in the classes helps resolve an issue that
would have involved both of their attorneys, it'll be the best $125
they ever spent.

Figure this, if both parents raise an issue with their attnies and
both attnies bill them for 2 hours each, the total cost to the family
is close to $1,000 when the smoke clears..

> The Court also had to
> admit in the same breath after parents waste their time and money for
> paying and attending parenting classes the parents can toss everything
> in the garbage that was forced down their throats.

How was anything "forced down their throats?"

***
It wasn't.  They were given a choice, and they made the one that was the
best given the circumstances.  Just like every other parent in the world.

> Parents DO NOT
> have to use any of the information. Parents can walk out of the class
> and never use any of the information. The State of Connecticut or the
> courts can not force parents to use ANY information that is given
> them. Parents who are forced to attend classes who have already
> decided to never to use any of it is a waste of time and money.

How can someone decide not to use anything from the parenting class
when they've never attended it?

> Parenting classes [ have NEVER helped ] a child and there is no
> evidence to show [ otherwise ].

Never?

I find that difficult to believe.

***
And most of us know better.  gregg is posturing for his own sake, the fact
that HE was required to attend such classes does not make him an expert,
obviously, since his S.O.'s daughter still has not been reunited with her
mother.

> These classes are based on educated
> guess at best.

Conflict resolution isn't a guessing game.

> Every child is different and the parent knows the
> child and is fully capable of educating their own children.

All parents are capable of educating their children?

That's why no parent should have to attend the parenting class?

***
Most parents are totally incapable of educating their own children without
significant study on their own part and massive support from an outside
interest.  A remarkably ignorant observation you have made  there gregg.

> Stop
> wasting parents time and money. Judges already have the authority to
> order parenting classes or anger management classes in a case by case
> basis and has judicial review. In divorce cases, parenting classes
> are part of an automatic court order the minute you file for divorce
> with NO judicial review. The intent of the classes were to help
> children through an alleged difficult time.

Children and parents.

> This state statute
> forcing parenting classes is not supported that parents and children
> need or want help. Nor did the state show that parents are incapable
> of handling divorce or any other stressful time in the family like a
> death of a parent. The state presumes that ALL parents are unfit and
> incompetent contrary to Troxel v. Granville.

The state presumes that both that parents and children in a family
going thru a divorce would benefit in some way by taking a parenting
course.

Actually it probably costs the attorneys far more (in fees) than it
costs the parents.

> In the U.S. Supreme Court
> opinion in Troxel v. Granville, parents are presumed to be fit,
> competent and fully capable of taking care of their children. The
> state must show the requisite proof of parental unfitness in order for
> states or judges to have jurisdiction.

Don't the Judge's have jurisdiction because the parents filed for a
divorce?

***
Sure the judge does, because the parents themselves have asked the courts to
intervene by initiating a divorce action.  Judges would be remiss in their
duties if they failed to consider the impact to the family as a whole and
all of its parts individually.  Divorce is a legal action, not a moral one.

Once more gregg is putting his ignorance on display for all to see.  I have
stopped being shocked by this, seems its his personal quirk to have others
note just how illiterate he actually is.

Ron
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]