Jon Clark seeks law to increase parental rights over adult children

[FundieWatcher]

I’m writing about this situation for something else. But I wanted to share it here. 

Jon Clark, a parent from Texas, is trying to use a circumstance his daughter was involved in as a way to increase parental control of adult children (who will typically be women).

He claims his adult daughter was lured by human traffickers on SnapChat. Because adult women are always lured and are very brainwashable, they never make choices-good or bad- on their own. He then claims she was forced to have sex for money and held against her will.

There are actually already laws against this. This is not about human trafficking. It is about using human trafficking as a way for parents to have more control and for adults to lose rights. 

Amoung  the worst of his ideas:

Quote

Providing extended parental guardianship in specific circumstances and emergencies. This may seem somewhat disconnected, but it is a vitally important tool strengthening a family’s ability to rescue children ensnared by HT, and to get them the medical treatment and counseling they need for recovery.

It was one of the most challenging barriers we faced in getting help for our daughter. Doctors and counselors would not talk to us or even allow us to be present for her evaluation or treatment because she was 18.

A number of reasons are listed in the petition for adults not being allowed to make decisions for themselves:   

Quote

 

 When parents are present with their child, the parents would have default guardianship to act on the child’s behalf (with hospitals, doctors, treatment/therapy facilities, police, etc.) if at least four of following statements below are true:

    The child lives at home

    The child is still in high school

    The child is a full-time student

    The child is claimed as a dependent by the parent(s) on the prior year’s tax return

    The child has never been married

    The child has not been the subject of any CPS abuse investigations

 

 

 

 

Petition:

ipetitions.com/petition/strengthen-anti-human-trafficking-laws-increase

News Article:

khou.com/amp/news/local/exclusive-dad-saves-daughter-lured-into-sex-trade-via-snapchat-/330147741

 

More on this story, but I don’t know anything about this site.  If this is true, this puts him in fundie land:

reason.com/blog/2016/10/12/texas-dad-pushes-guardianship-law-change/amp

 

[ladyamylynn]

This is absolutely ridiculous. There are other ways for a parent or guardian to intervene if an adult is undergoing some sort of crisis (Britney Spears and her father's conservatorship, for example.) Of course something like that would be determined by a court order.

[FundieWatcher]

Under Jon Clark's proposed law, adults can appeal. This is after the parents are already the default guardians.  How the fuck are the adult children going to get a lawyer and appeal with their parents legally monitoring them?!

"Pimps" are being used as a boogeyman here. They are grooming your daughters everywhere they turn. All daughters all the time. They have a whole pimp network and target random middle class girls without fear. "Pimps" in this case are being used to describe what is just a shitty boyfriend. And it is legal, if not wise, to have a shitty significant other.

Laws to protect people from violence and kidnapping already exisit. People should not be allowed to hide behind brainwashing as reason to stop their children from something they don't like. 

 

Quote

If parents exercise the default guardianship, the child would be notified of their right to a judicial review within 7 days if they so chose. During the review the judge would either sustain the parental guardianship for the duration they determine is appropriate, or revoke the parents’ guardianship immediately if the judge believes the child is not benefiting from it. The worst case scenario for those who oppose such a law is that parents would have up to 7 days of parental custody to “impose” medical treatment or counseling on one of their children until it could be reviewed by a judge. Today the time it takes to secure judicial review and establish temporary guardianship could easily be enough to lose an abused teen to the people exploiting them. The current default is for the doctors or facilities to release girls back onto the street or back to the pimp. Releasing an 18 year-old high school senior to her pimp instead of her parents sounds crazy, but it happened in August to one of the families I was trying to help rescue their daughter.

 

Edited October 13, 2016 by FundieWatcher

[Marian the Librarian]

Prediction: James and Lisa Pennington are going to be on this like stink on cheese.

[Four is Enough]

OF COURSE it's for the "protection of the wimmin." 

Gag me.

[AmazonGrace]

I believe the adult in question can already  allow the doctors to give info to the parents if she desires their participation.

[Cleopatra7]

Human trafficking and sexual slavery are real issues that demand a serious response. But human trafficking rings aren't trolling middle class neighborhoods in white vans waiting to snatch innocent SAHDs off the streets. I don't see how stripping adult children of their legal rights would prevent them from being lured away by predators on social media. If anything, it might make escaping through social media even more attractive, because home life would feel so oppressive that running away with Snap Chat weirdos would be seen as welcome change.

[FundieWatcher]

Somewhere along the way some decided sex trafficking should become the new "satanic panic" or invented crisis. Organizations, politicians, and activists make claims and a huge conspiracy is alleged to exist without any proof whatsoever. With sex trafficking it is that there hordes of pimps online, specifically social media. They are sophisticated criminal masterminds. They can quickly brainwash your child into becoming a prostitute and abandoning their loving home.  Any and every child is at risk- especially your beautiful Caucasian daughters.

Politicians and organizations  use it to draw attention to themselves. Activists petition the government for millions in grant money so they can fight it. And rumors and misinformation spread like wildfire. 

While human trafficking in it's true form is overlooked- particularly forced labor in mines and brick kilns. The form sex trafficking truly takes in the US isn't anything like what celebrities and politicians go on about. 

[anjulibai]

I can almost sympathize, because there are 18 year olds still in high school and living at home who parents have a hard time controlling. Then they act like asses at school. I teach high school and my most frustrating students are usually the 18 year old seniors. My only recourse is to call their parents, and the parents say "Yeah, can't do anything, he's 18".

But that's not a good enough reason for this. 18 is an adult, that's it. If you want the age of majority, that might be one thing (though I'd disagree), but there shouldn't be some extra layer to it like this. 

[Koala]

Well excuse me for saying so, but fuck that.  

[FundieWatcher]

My non teacher opinion: I wish the high school would force out the over 17 chronic trouble makers. Once you hit 18 then there are or should be a higher set of standards. In other words with privilege comes responsibility. There academic life won't be over. When they are ready to take it seriously they can get their GED and then go to community college. To me an adult is an adult, I hate this ambiguous gray area. 

[anjulibai]

17 minutes ago, FundieWatcher said:

My non teacher opinion: I wish the high school would force out the over 17 chronic trouble makers. Once you hit 18 then there are or should be a higher set of standards. In other words with privilege comes responsibility. There academic life won't be over. When they are ready to take it seriously they can get their GED and then go to community college. To me an adult is an adult, I hate this ambiguous gray area. 

It's more complicated than that, though. If they were a danger to the student body, sure, but mostly it's just stupid stuff, like talking in class and not getting work done. I don't want to kick a student out for that. They are, in many ways, still children (their brains certainly haven't finished developing) and not having a high school diploma can make their lives very difficult. Many will not go back for their GEDs, and even those who do, it just is not the same as getting a high school diploma. 

Dealing with their behavior problems is frustrating, to be sure, but I would not advocate changing anything because of it. Hard line stances just aren't going to be effective long term. 

[FundieWatcher]

I don't  see it as a hard line stance. More like freedom of choice.  No way do I think school faculty  should be drill instructors- just out looking for anything to punish. More like "Hey, you aren't doing yourself any favors by interrupting lessons and not doing work. " And then if nothing improves they know where the doors are. But I know schools are under pressure to achieve the highest possible graduation rates and that leads to students being pressured to stay. 

[Lurky]

Wow. I get that this comes from a place of pain, but this is a crazy suggestion. Quite apart from the fact there are all kinds of laws about Human Trafficking in most developed countries, and where this in the UK, there would be a ton of social worker support for an 18 year old in this case, the potential for this law is ridiculous. 

He doesn't seem to specify what the "specific circumstances and emergencies" the law applies in - so I'm imagining a scenario where Fundy parents try to get this done if a child comes out as LGBT, or wants to leave home or go to university etc.

But the bottom line is, I don't really understand how "we weren't allowed to be in our daughter's appointments" is the same thing as "we couldn't get her treatment".  It sounds, from the petition, like they're conflating the two things there, when really they're two very different issues.

[Pianokeeper]

UMMMMMMM. So an 18 year old who has left home and is not in any way a dependent -- who is going to high school full time, unmarried, and never under CPS investigation -- could just be pressed back under her parents' thumbs?

 

Ha. RIGHT. This totally doesn't stand up to 14th Amendment scrutiny, at all. 

[Hane]

This guy is obvs a douche, but something tangentially related that happened in my family:

When my middle sister was about 25, single, and living at home (some 30 years ago), she was suffering from bulimia and anorexia so badly her potassium level fell to near-lethal levels and she was hospitalized to normalize them. She was having hallucinations and was barely coherent much of the time. Still, her doctors didn't want to share info about her condition or care with my mother, with whom she lived and who would be caring for her once she was released from the hospital. 

This was a fairly short-term illness back in the '80s, and I'm wondering whether such matters are handled differently now.

 

 

[nokidsmom]

35 minutes ago, Lurky said:

Wow. I get that this comes from a place of pain, but this is a crazy suggestion. Quite apart from the fact there are all kinds of laws about Human Trafficking in most developed countries, and where this in the UK, there would be a ton of social worker support for an 18 year old in this case, the potential for this law is ridiculous. 

He doesn't seem to specify what the "specific circumstances and emergencies" the law applies in - so I'm imagining a scenario where Fundy parents try to get this done if a child comes out as LGBT, or wants to leave home or go to university etc.

But the bottom line is, I don't really understand how "we weren't allowed to be in our daughter's appointments" is the same thing as "we couldn't get her treatment".  It sounds, from the petition, like they're conflating the two things there, when really they're two very different issues.

To the bolded: not being allowed to be in the appointments is probably due to being age of majority in that state and if the patient has not updated things like HIPAA disclosure forms etc, when they turn 18 then the parent does not have access to medical information and that includes appointments.     Same thing if the patient does not authorize disclosure which could have happened here.    Nothing a parent can do about it.    

Which gets me wondering if this guy not only doesn't realize that there are the ways to help an adult child in a trafficking situation, he doesn't seem to know that there's HIPAA.

Edited October 13, 2016 by nokidsmom

[Howl]

It seems laws widely state to state.  A friend's parent had a psychotic break on vacation in a state in the American west, and was institutionalized until stabilized. Open communication between staff and family (spouse and adult children) about treatment and progress was considered very important to integrating the patient back into regular home life. 

Person is moved back to home state: It was like pulling teeth to get the basic information because of patient confidentiality.   

 

 

[Lurky]

@nokidsmom Oh, I absolutely understand that - and I think it's right it should be so.  What I'm saying is that "she won't let us be part of her treatment" isn't the same thing as "she's not getting treatment"

@Hane I'm sorry about your sister, but I will never agree that parents' wishes should over-ride an adult's wishes about who gets what information about their treatment. 

ETA I know this is difficult for people's loved one's, but it's horrible for the person undergoing treatment, too.  I don't want to diminish parents' pain, BUT parents' pain shouldn't have more weight than an adult's rights. 

 

Edited October 13, 2016 by Lurky

[nokidsmom]

9 minutes ago, Lurky said:

@nokidsmom Oh, I absolutely understand that - and I think it's right it should be so.  What I'm saying is that "she won't let us be part of her treatment" isn't the same thing as "she's not getting treatment"

@Hane I'm sorry about your sister, but I will never agree that parents' wishes should over-ride an adult's wishes about who gets what information about their treatment. 

 

@Lurky  I understand what you are saying and I agree that they are totally different things.  I wasn't clear in my reply that I was pointing out the reasons behind why they weren't "part of her treatment" was because of confidentiality laws and the parents did not have authorization.   I edited my post to highlight that part I was addressing.

 

Edited October 13, 2016 by nokidsmom

[FundieWatcher]

The right privacy and the right to refuse treatment are probably what will keep this from moving forward. I can understand the frustration at seeing a family member you love make choices that are harmful. There is already a way to go about having them committed against their will though. We don't need default guardianship for adults IMO. This especially suspicious because so much is aimed at making sex work a mental illness that needs involuntary commitment. 

[dianapavelovna]

Zero comment from Clark's adult daughter, the victim. Funny, that. She's conveniently stashed away in residential treatment, and we don't get to hear her opinions about these proposed laws or any of her parents' actions.

I'm with @AmazonGrace - my understanding is that adults can generally give consent (providers will want a written, signed consent) for parents, family members, etc. to be allowed access to treatment information. @Lurky also made a great point: based on Clark's quotes, the problem wasn't accessing treatment for his daughter. The problem was that her parents (read: HIM) weren't allowed unfettered access to details of her treatment and care. 

Clark refutes the idea that he and his wife were "uninvolved parents" by describing how his daughter wasn't allowed to take her phone upstairs to her bedroom, and he and his wife "check[ed]" it several times a week. They had passwords to all her accounts. They would grab the phone out of her hands unexpectedly and put a GPS tracker on her car. She had to Facetime her parents when she was out to prove she was where she said she would be. She was grounded for having contact with people her parents "thought were trouble," and Clark himself "assertively demanded" face-to-face that they stay away from her. This is ridiculous. Are we supposed to agree that this is a good model of parenting young adults? Are we supposed to feel bad or surprised that such noble efforts were met with resistance? Replace "parents" with "boyfriend," and let's see how much sympathy there would be to go around. 

BUT WAIT! Clark himself told me everything I need to know (emphasis mine):

Quote

Children of parents have no right to privacy. We have a responsibility to search EVERYTHING. Install an application like mobistealth or Mobil-spy on your kid's phone. Mobile-spy monitors a few more things, mobistealth doesn't let the child know a monitoring application is installed.

That's pretty redundant, man. All children are "of parents." And it seems that Clark will fight to keep them legally children for as long as possible in the name of safety.

His suggestion to require people be 21 to work in a SOB is reasonable (although, as I recall, most SOBs in Texas are not registered as such, so if he's using that term in the legal sense, putting that language in a bill would be pretty useless). I live in Texas, and I'll be keeping an eye on this when the legislative session starts next year. I could probably get behind the age-hike, but not if it's a Trojan horse for this ridiculous "parental guardianship" nonsense. 

[Lurky]

@FundieWatcher And it's not just sex work, it's Sex Oriented Businesses.  What does that even mean? Does it have a legal definition, or is it vague-ing?  Of course prostitution, and I'm guessing he'd include stripping or working as a shot girl at a club, but also on a phone sex line or a webcam?  Working in a shop like Anne Summers?  (UK high street shop selling lingerie, outfits, lube and vibrators/fluffy handcuffs etc) or feminist sex shop like Toys in Babeland? A shop that sells erotica/porn or somewhere like Victoria's Secret?    My sister had a saturday job in a respectable high street lingerie shop when she was 16-8, would that be OK?

Then there are things like working at Planned Parenthood or a family planning clinic, training as a nurse in gynecological settings, doing volunteer work like I did at uni for "Healthy Sex Week", where we made up leaflets about STIs and handed out a lot of condoms.   Or hell, working behind a bar at a gay club - and knowing right wingers, anything at all for the LGBT community, regardless that they'd say "it's not about sex, it's about sexuality".

This is the problem about laws like this - they start out with this terrifying thing like Sexual trafficking, and impact a much wider range of issues, because they're vaguely worded.

Edited October 13, 2016 by Lurky
Riffles, I really should proof-read

[FundieWatcher]

Quote

 impact a much wider range of issues, because they're vaguely worded.

Agreed. Like the rights of the mentally ill and what is considered harmful enough to deserve involuntary commitment. 

[Lurky]

3 minutes ago, FundieWatcher said:

what is considered harmful enough to deserve involuntary commitment. 

There were so many awful, awful reasons women used to be institutionalised - and a lot of them around consensual sex (Had an affair?  She must be insane!  Lesbian?  Lock her up!) - that I really worry about adding more.