Senator Alan Clark Challenges the System on State Abduction of Children

Most reasonable people will acknowledge that there are times children need to be removed from homes for their own protection.  Sometimes parents are on drugs, or so crazy that they can't even take care of themselves, much less children. Sometimes there is a live-in boyfriend or relative who is a sexual predator. When parents fail to do their duty there are times when it is just and right for others to step in, including the state.

But when I says "parents fail to do their duty" it is understood that it is their duty to do. It is not the state's duty. The parents are not doing a job on behalf of the state. Rather it is the duty of those who created that human life to nurture and protect it. Where there is a duty, there is a responsibility. Where there is responsibility, their should be authority. Where there is responsibility and authority, there should be a right.

While parents sometimes fail to live up to their responsibilities our total modern state tends to intervene more than it should. Right now, families in Arkansas are losing their children to a Child "Protective Services" division which is too quick to remove children from families for reasons that are insufficient. That is a big reason why there has been an explosion in the number of children "needing" foster care. Parenting has not suddenly gotten worse, but the state of Arkansas has grown quickly more assertive in using its power to remove children from homes "for their own protection."

State Senator Alan Clark (R) of Lonsdale has led the charge in pushing back against a system which has become overly aggressive in removing children from their homes. Every parent in the state should thank him for pushing back against an arm of the state which is going beyond its just duties. When writing the headline for this article, I started to write that Clark was pushing against the state's "Child Protective Services" because that is what they call themselves. But what they call themselves is not what Clark is pushing against. What he is protecting against is the State abducting children from their homes even when they are not in real danger. Maybe they are in danger of being safely and lovingly raised in a manner and according to beliefs that a hyper-liberal judge does not approve of, but that's not a "danger" children are supposed to be "protected" from in what purports to be a free society.

Indeed, Clark pushed back against one of those judges too, Patricia James. Judge James ordered the removal of children from homes even when the DHS caseworkers thought the children should not be removed. He issued the judge a subpoena to answer before a legislative committee for some of her rulings. Of course the establishment press got in a tizzy about this, because they represent the elites. The elites want to separate what happens in state government from the will of the people as far as they possibly can. This means that, for one thing, they want the legislature to be utterly supine before the courts. And until this they mostly have been. Do we elect judges too? Sure but they have rigged it so judges can't talk about any issues so people are voting in the dark. And when you vote in the dark, dark money of the sort which has found its way into judicial elections in this state almost always wins.

The papers asked a bunch of judges and lawyers what they thought of the legislative branch showing the least little bit of gumption in pushing back against a lower-tier member of a judicial branch which orders them around all the time. Naturally the judges and lawyers thought that giving the Legislature any authority to investigate any aspect of the Judiciary was a terrible idea. I think its a great idea because I believe in checks and balances just like the Founders. I also believe in separation of powers, but not the way these people define it- where there is no check or balance on the judiciary and so they separate the legislature from their powers!

Clark did not get anywhere with his subpoena of James because the usual suspects, the "leadership" in the legislature Sen. Jonathan Dismang and Rep. J. Gilliam, shot down the attempt. But he is getting somewhere with his investigation of DHS procedures. It turns out that there is a pre-disposition to remove children from the home, and this has precipitated a rise in foster care. I think he will be able to successfully roll back some of this abuse of power, if we stand behind him. In other words, I am reporting good news for a change and on this issue in particular that is very refreshing.

Look, parents who live a little different life style from what the elites think is proper should not live in fear of having their children abducted by the state. Raising children is the duty and responsibility of the parent, and I know most of you will agree that unless the child is in real danger, like mortal danger or danger of sexual abuse, the state should not be in the habit of removing children from the home. I have often said that the next revolution is going to be fought over this issue. If the state keeps overplaying their hand, one day they are going to try and take the wrong redneck's kids. Not some isolated loner, but someone with lots of friends and family in the woods around them. If the worst happens, I don't think the Prosecutor would want me on that jury. Alan Clark should have support from both the people and from the elites for his work in diffusing a potentially devastating situation.