"Parens patriae"...the curse of Western civilization when combined with "modern psychcology."

"Parens patriae"...the presumed legal "right" of the state to seize control of children was originally used in England starting in the 14th century, and it dealt only with a very narrow purpose. This has now been expanded by the application of Freudian/Pavolvian/Jungian and EVEN MARXIST thought (though Marx is a twisted political philosopher, and not actually a psychologist) to assert the supremacy of the state against the parent.

The term "parens patriae" technically means (quoting Black's law dictionary):

"i) It is the right held by the court to take a reasonable decision on the part of a person who is unable to make one for himself. Usually, such people suffer from disabilities, rendering it impossible for them to make the right decision. Ii) The right withheld by the court to begin prosecuting a case on behalf of a legal, disabled citizen."

As you can see, even the law book that most legal scholars use as their "go-to-source" for legal definitions does not apply the doctrine of parens patriae to children, specifically. One could argue that children can be deduced or implied to be a person "unable to make one for himself," but the way it is used every day by Western "Child Protective" "Services" (CPS) and/or Departments of "Human Services" (DHS) is a manifest torturing of the history and practice of the doctrine.

Here is a description of how parens patriae was used in the Middle Ages in Britain:

"...it dealt with the king’s appointment of a financial manager to oversee the property of orphans of noble rank. If these wealthy children lost their parents, the king appointed someone who exercised wardship. The king’s representative extended financial assistance to ensure the orphans would not be exploited. This management also guaranteed that the children would be reared and educated to evolve into adults of noble rank, who owed allegiance to the king."
(Source: https://www.essayempire.com/examples/criminal-justice/parens-patriae-essay/)

In America, of course, much of our legal and Constitutional underpinnings come from English Common Law, but they were also heavily imbued with a heavy does of both Christian and "enlightenment era" principles. The doctrine that underpins the supposed supremacy of the state over children is largely a ROMAN construct, and not really even amenable to the rest of our legal structure in the United States.

"Parens patriae" was first applied here in the USA to assert the state's right to establish special juvenile courts that were not subject to the same laws of performance (and ignored the Constitutional provisions found in the 4th and 6th Amendments) as "adult courts." These courts first came into widespread usage with the rise of the first "family court" in Chicago in 1899. (NOTE: This was AFTER the Rockefellers had founded the University of Chicago there, and began manipulating public policy in all walks of life, most notably in urban "planning," local building "codes," etc., but also in the area under discussion now.)

(The Rockefellers' "University of Chicago.")

Quite quickly, the notion of a separate "Family Court" was supplemented by/with state-controlled facilities for dealing with children that the court determined were "in danger." This led to the rise of commonplace state-run orphanages, but also to juvenile detention centers, separate from "adult" prisons. At first, there was a preponderance of children determined by the state to be "in danger," who may actually have been in danger. But, as with every other "camel's nose under the tent" situation, once power was given to the state to determine "in danger" (now: "at risk") the definitions began to slip to grant more and more power to the state (for flimsier and flimsier evidence of actual danger,) and less and less power to parents.

Here is an excerpt from a different article on the history of the so-called "Family Court:"

"The juvenile court doctrine was interpreted to mean that, because children were not of full legal capacity, the state had the inherent power and responsibility to provide protection for children whose natural parents were not providing appropriate care or supervision. The juvenile court has evolved throughout its lifetime."
(Source: https://www.16thcircuit.org/history)

EMPHASIS on that last sentence above: That could be the understatement of the last century and a quarter! The admission is appreciated though, as it helps us to possibly find a way back from the brink of disaster over which we have already fallen. How has it evolved? SIMPLE...by application of anti-American, extra-legal, anti-Constitutional, statist/atheist notions of the proper relationship between state, church and family.

I've already written in these pages about the later history of how state interference in family life to "advocate" for children was much later (1970s and 1980s) exploded into the whole notion of not just providing for temporary lodging and/or penile detention for minors, but how the whole CPS/DHS milieu began with various (also un-Constitutional) actions by Congress. These, in turn--with the horrendous and sandy foundation of "legal precedent"-- have led us so far down the road from what used to constitute a proper relationship between state and families, to where we are now MUCH MORE akin to a Marxist nanny state, than a Constitutional Republic.

The state's primary objective--despite any and all flowery language about a "desire to protect" children and families--is always for self preservation. Whatever is good for the state will ALWAYS, under the Marxist/Rockefeller paradigm we have allowed ourselves to morph into, take precedence over all else...children and families be damned. We see this FACT played out over and over again within the CPS/DHS/LEO/Court System, such that one would be hard-pressed to raise examples of where families and/or parents EVER successfully exhibit old-fashioned, Constitutional, Biblical supremacy v.v. the state.

With the 14th Amendment hot in the news right now, due to Trump's assertion that so-called "birthright citizenship" for children of illegal aliens is indeed invalid, here is a quotation from a long essay on parens patriae:

"Parens patriae as the foundation of the juvenile court: In its past decisions, the Court had interpreted the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to mean that certain classes of people could receive less due process if a “compensating benefit” came with this lesser protection. In theory, the juvenile court provided less due process but a greater concern for the interests of the juvenile. The Court referred to evidence that this compensating benefit may not exist in reality and that juveniles may receive the “worst of both worlds”—“neither the protection accorded to adults nor the solicitous care and regenerative treatment postulated."
(Source: https://www.essayempire.com/examples/criminal-justice/parens-patriae-essay/)

Again, another very interesting admission. Here we see that the courts have created a monster based on the quick-sand of their Roman Law parens patriae doctrine. There can be no doubt that children do indeed receive the "worst of both worlds" under the current paradigm. That is equally true of the CPS/DHS system as it is with the juvenile delinquency systems. Studies PROVE that children (specifically the 90% or more of those seized, who were never involved in any serious threat) do far better when left with less-than-perfect parents, than when seized and placed in any type of state custody--even into "good foster homes" with kind and well-intended foster parents.

Clearly the state has whatever the opposite of the Midas Touch might be. Clearly, the further the state asserts itself as having the sole power over parents, governmental sub-units, and even their own laws and Constitutional strictures, the worse things get for anyone trapped within that state.

We are there folks. We may be OVER the point of no return. The Rubicon is behind us.

We can reverse course, but it will NOT be easy. We have all got to find time and courage to force our "public servants" to stop acting (and believing) as though they were our masters. We must insist on PROPER APPLICATION of our founding principles in the face of Rockefeller-style "code" and color of law doctrines built on "legal precedent."

It will not be easy. Without a renewal of public belief in the things that founded the country, and a devotion to higher principles, it will be impossible. That is why education about the proper relationship between the federal government v.v. states and families is so critical. That includes the old state's rights principles that were largely destroyed during the Civil War when the state's rights baby got thrown out with the slavery dirty bath water, but it must be rejuvenated.

In order to slay the federal leviathan, we must first cut him down to size. The closer to home we can make the allegiances of the laws, the court systems that interpret them, and law enforcers who enforce them the better chance we will have of forcing significant reform.

This is what the power pyramid is supposed to be like in America:

individual ("We the People")
family
town
county
state
federal

This is what it is now:

federal
state
county
town
individual-family

It will take a complete and utter reversal of 100+ years of Rockefellerized precedent to get back to our Constitutional underpinnings, but while we still have people who can read cursive and understand our founding documents, and while God is still in His heaven, there is always hope.