California School Should Be Indicted For Contributing To Delinquency Of A Minor

Here is a article about Catholic Monsignor Dale Fushek who is accused of sexually assaulting several boys, as well as asking them inappropriate questions as the below cite indicates.

“…asked them prying questions about their sex lives that he pretended were part of confession.”

It immediately reminded me of a recent ruling in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concerning where schools asked students prying questions about sex. This was where the federal judges ruled parents were not sole providers of their own children's sex education. So let me see, it is permissible for government to ask prying sexual questions of minors but not for the church to do so. Those teachers should have been charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, as I believe California has a variation of that law on their books also. But of course, Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt did not consider the possibility of damage against the children caused by their early introduction to sex since there is no indication in the article I have about the case that either side brought it up.

On the other hand, the article does display evidence that he was asked to rule on parental rights. His ruling was "no such specific right can be found in the deep roots of the nation's history and tradition or implied in the concept of ordered liberty.". This shows an obvious ignorance of American legal history. The consent of parents has traditionally been considered necessary by law before minor children were married with a few exceptions. He also ignores the Declaration of Independence’s legalization of natural laws which were defined by John Locke in his 1690 The Second Treatise of Civil Government which explicitly mention parental rights.

“The appeals court noted that other courts have upheld mandatory health classes, a school system's condom distribution program and compulsory sex ed.”

What other courts have done is irrelevant unless they are constitutional and the Constitution is quite clear on the exceptions to personal liberties as outlined in the preamble. John Lock is more detailed when he describes the limits to all liberties in that liberty does not justify license.

In this case you have the hypothesis of the government vs. the hypothesis of the parents and parental right clearly gives the parents primary jurisdiction unless that right is removed by the due process of law or the child’s health is in immediate and significant danger or the evidence supporting the government's hypothesis of what is best for the child is significantly stronger than the parents'.