Basically the judges decision is a declaration that no parents anywhere - not just the Pellettiers - have rights to have their children. The government owns the children, and merely allows families to stay together until they see fit to take them away. How so? Well to get Justina back, the Pelletiers must prove that they are fit parents. The state doesnt have to show that the Pelletiers are bad or unfit parents, the Pelletiers must prove that they are good and fit parents - and do this to the satisfaction of the ones that took Justina away in the first place! They must give up their right to free speech, and smile and make nice and kowtow to the authorities that hardly allow them to spend any time at all with their own daughter. If they dare show anger or say how they really feel - a more than reasonable response given their situation - they are somehow unfit parents (when in reality theyd be unfit if they werent angry). Imagine that youre accused of a crime - and punished until you can prove that you are innocent to the very people who have a self-serving interest in your guilt (at this point the judge, Massachusetts DCF and Boston Childrens Hospital can hardly say oh, sorry! Our bad! Guess we messed up! Heres Justina back! No harm done!, they must prove themselves right). Could you bear up under the weight when the burden of proof is on you - not on your accusers? Why doesnt the state have to prove that the Pelletiers are bad parents, rather than the Pelletiers have to prove they are good parents? Isnt the judge in reality also accusing not only the Pelletiers but Tufts and its doctors of medical child abuse (though of course he doesnt have the courage to spell that out in clear language)? Is following the advice of extremely reputable doctors considered an act of child abuse in Massachusetts?
Posted on: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 18:38:28 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015