Parental Rights in the Forgotten File October 6, 2009

We finally got an external hard drive so I can clean out the old computer and we can put on a new operating system. As I am going through my old files, cleaning out the junk and finding the good, I am stumbling across half finished almost blogs. I think, since I lack the motivation to do more, I am going to post them as they are.

The following was written almost two years ago. It just kind of ends at the end so…feel free to finish it.

I have a problem. A friend sent me a link to a group which is rallying support for a Constitutional Amendment to protect parental rights from government intrusion without due process of the law. I researched it (I am still in the process but had to get some thought out of my head and onto “paper”) and while I agree in part, I disagree in part as well.

I don’t even know where to begin.

Here’s the part I’m currently upset at:

There is only one solution to this approaching storm: a constitutional amendment that places current Supreme Court doctrine protecting parental rights into the explicit language of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment will shelter the child-parent relationship from the coming storm, ensuring that parents have the right to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

No government, regardless of how well-intentioned it might be, can replace the love and nurture of a parent in the life of a child. Parents care, not because their children are “wards” for whom they are responsible. Parents are willing to brave danger and sacrifice, hardship and heartache to ensure the best for their kids. (the last two paragraphs from ParentalRights.org’s website two years ago.)

I want to draw your attention to a couple of phrases.

“There is only one solution”

Really. Only one. And you’ve discovered it. I am suspicious when anyone or any group claims to have THE answer. Sometimes there is clearly only one answer. In this case I see many answers. Not included in these viable answers are the movement they are fighting against nor the movement they are promoting. More on that later.

“This amendment will shelter the child-parent relationship from the coming storm, ensuring that parents have the right to direct the upbringing and education of their children.”

Um, last time I checked, there were numerous Constitutional Amendments that are currently being violated. Why would this be any different? Also, as I said in my previous blog (read it here), “[t]he only thing that guarantees a right is the willingness to fight and die for those rights.” An amendment is going to do jack-shit until parents are willing, when the government ignores the constitution (Privacy Act anyone?), to take up arms and have their last act in the world be dying for their children or leaving their cushy jobs and McMansions and fleeing the country, provided of course that we’ve not locked ourselves in with a giant wall across our borders. Until parents believe in their rights enough to do that, their rights cannot and will not, be protected.

“Parents care, not because their children are “wards” for whom they are responsible. Parents are willing to brave danger and sacrifice, hardship and heartache to ensure the best for their kids. “

Yeah, and I know a lot of people who aren’t this “model” of a parent. I’ve started meeting some people who aren’t from my church. Yup, I’m 27 years old and I finally have friends that don’t profess the exact same things I do. I’m growing as a person and it’s absolutely blowing my world apart. There are parents out there who are absolutely not “…willing to brave danger and sacrifice, hardship and heartache…” to ensure even the mediocre for their kids. There’s a gal I know who despises her kids. You can see it on her face when they whine at her. Total disgust. She pawns them off on sitters and nannies, refuses to instill the simplest rules or boundaries and then wonders why they are whiny little rotters. She’s not going to fight for her “rights” as a parent and when enough of people like her have allowed the government to roll over them, the government will realize it can do whatever the hell it wants, just like it’s been doing for a century.

Point Two with this group: The first story they present as precedent of the “dark clouds on the horizon” is the story of Rolin and Laura Sumey and their daughter, Sheila. By the time Sheila was 15, there had been numerous “problems” between her and her parents, resulting in Sheila running away a number of times. Extensive counseling was tried but ultimately failed.

In June, again conflict arose and Mrs. Sumey fearing her daughter would again leave home, called the police and they placed Sheila in a receiving home (I have no idea what a receiving home is and a cursory investigation has not provided results. If someone knows what they are, please share your knowledge), preventing her from running away. DSHS (Department of Social and Health Services) began to provide crisis intervention services (as is no doubt law when a parent calls the police on their child). Mrs. Sumey signed consent for Sheila to be in receiving care.

DSHS counseling did not result in reconciliation between Sheila and her parents and within a month, “Sheila filed a petition for alternative residential placement with the Pierce County Juvenile Court…A hearing on the petition was held, and the juvenile court concluded that: the family was in conflict; prior counseling and crisis intervention had failed to remedy that conflict; the conflict could not be remedied by continued placement in the home; and the reasons for the alternative residential placement were not capricious. The court approved the petition for alternative residential placement and ordered that Sheila be placed in a non-secure licensed facility. The court provided for rights of visitation for Mr. and Mrs. Sumey. The case was set for review in 6 months to determine what had been accomplished in resolving the conflict and reuniting the family.” (excerpt from the Law Offices of David S. Vogel, P.L.L.C.)

This is not the story the Parental Rights organization tells you. Here’s their story:

In the early 1980s, a landmark parental rights case reached the Washington State Supreme Court. The case involved 13-year-old Sheila Marie Sumey, whose parents were alarmed when they found evidence of their daughter’s participation in illegal drug activity and escalating sexual involvement. Their response was to act immediately to cut off the negative influences in their daughter’s life by grounding her.

But when Sheila went to her school counselors complaining about her parent’s actions, she was advised that she could be liberated from her parents because there was “conflict between parent and child.” Listening to the advice she had received, Sheila notified Child Protective Services (CPS) about her situation. She was subsequently removed from her home and placed in foster care.

Her parents, desperate to get their daughter back, challenged the actions of the social workers in court. They lost. Even though the judge found that Sheila’s parents had enforced reasonable rules in a proper manner, the state law nevertheless gave CPS the authority to split apart the Sumey family and take Sheila away.

Not quite the same story, it it?

Let’s take a look at the other stories they have on their website:

A thirteen-year-old boy in Washington State was removed from his parents after he complained to school counselors that his parents took him to church too often. His school counselors had encouraged him to call Child Protective Services with his complaint, which led to his subsequent removal and placement in foster care. It was only after the parents agreed to a judge’s requirement of less-frequent church attendance that they were able to recover their son.

After much research and an email to the lawyer who started parentarights.org (to which, when we asked for verification, he said, “I was the lawyer on the case), and then more research, armed now with the lawyer’s name, we were unable to find independent verification that this case ever existed anywhere outside of this lawyer’s mind. This is the story as he put it in another source. The boy’s parents wanted him to attend three church services a week and he wanted to attend only one. The judge ruled that once a week is enough church for a thirteen year old boy. I hate to agree but I must.

If a thirteen year old is being forced to go to church against his will, he is not going to be changed by anything he hears or sees there. By the time a child is an adolescent, the groundwork of character development is complete and it’s just polishing from there on out. Forcing him to attend church three times more often than he wants is going to hinder, not help, his “religious education.”

A West Virginia mother was shocked when a local circuit judge and a family court judge ordered her to share custody of her four-year-old daughter with two of the girl’s babysitters. Referring to the sitters as “psychological co-parents,” the justices first awarded full custody to them, only permitting the mother to visit her daughter four times a week at McDonalds. Eventually she was granted primary custody, but forced to continue to share her daughter with the sitters.

When her case finally reached the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in October 2007, the beleaguered mother was relieved to finally be granted full custody of her daughter.

In their October 25 opinion Supreme Court justices wrote that they were “deeply troubled by the utter disregard” for the mother’s rights. One justice referred to the mother’s right as the “paramount right in the world.”

Chief Justice Robin Davis summed up the case in one simple question.”Why does a natural parent have to prove fitness when she has never been found unfit?” he asked.

This one is a bit more serious. Misty, the mother in this story, had primary custody of her daughter, Senturi. Joshua, the girl’s biological father, had one day a week visitation and was to be paying child support. Christopher and Tanya, the babysitters, were his cousins. They watched Senturi frequently, though how frequently I’ve been unable to ascertain. They were paid for at least a portion of the time they cared for Senturi. When Misty decided to move to Texas to be closer to her family, return to school, and seek better employment, Christopher and Tanya, along with the father, Joshua, went to court. They claimed they’d cared for the child for months on end but I’ve been unable to find record of that claim being investigated. They claimed they were Senturi’s “psychological co-parents.” They were awarded complete custody for a while, then custody with visitation for Misty, then partial custody. When Misty appealed to the supreme court, they reversed the orders of the lower courts and returned full custody to Misty.

So the story as ParentalRights.org presented it was fairly accurate. The problem I have with them using this story as an example is that justice was done. Yes, the mother was deprived of her daughter and the daughter of her mother for a couple of months and that’s regrettable. But the court system did what it is supposed to do. When Misty was unhappy with the results of a lower court, she took it to a higher court and eventually, justice and reason prevailed. Do I think the lower courts were in the wrong? Of course! Do I think a constitutional amendment is the answer to some judge making a bad judgment? Absolutely not!

So the first story they present, they present falsely.

The second is apparently pretend. Maybe I’m being judgmental but if I were a lawyer and someone asked for verification of a case, I would do more than tell them I was the lawyer on the case. I’d give them a link to a court record or a newspaper article or something besides, “I was there. It happened. Take my word for it.”

The third story was a case of a court disregarding parental rights but then in the same court system it was resolved. The child was at no time in the care of someone whom the mother had not already approved. After a couple of months, it worked out. The lower courts were wrong but it’s not an amendment worthy wrong.

The next thing ParentalRights.org petitions against is the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. The UNCRC is not something I want the U.S. to ratify but it’s not something that needs an amendment to stop. The reason that the U.S. has not ratified the convention is because it already contradicts U.S. Law. …

Abstinence-Only Education is No Education At All August 29, 2009

Abstinence-only education isn't

Abstinence only education is insidious. It does not teach students the things they need to know but instead attempts to indoctrinate them to a religious standard through the clever use of misinformation and outright lies. Curtis Porter, writing for the Administration for Children & Families (ACF), a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, laid out the guidelines for abstinence only education. These guidelines for “educating” students are an affront to progressive thinkers everywhere and abstinence-only curricula distorts the truth, bending it as far as it can without breaking it and, in some situations, snaps it completely.

Abstinence-only curriculum, according to ACF, must teach that a person’s life will turn out better if he or she waits until marriage to have sex. However, researchers Else-Quest, Hyde, and DeLamater, writing for The Journal of Sex Research, found that any attempt to form a causal relationship between premarital sex and negative life outcomes to be “unwarranted” (2005).

The curriculum must define marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as a husband and wife, and the word ’spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife” (p. 1), effectively sentencing homosexual teens to a lifetime of celibacy, along with any who do not believe in traditional marriage. The “one man and one woman” definition of marriage is one of a religious sentiment and one that the Iowa courts, among others, have deemed unconstitutional.

The curricula “must teach the psychological and physical benefits of sexual abstinence-until-marriage” (p. 1), yet the National Association of School Psychologists “believes comprehensive sexuality education is essential to promote the mental, physical, academic and emotional health of our children” (2003) and Lawrence Finer, writing for Public Health Reports, has found that 95 percent of the populace has had premarital sex by the time they are forty-four years of age (2007, p. 1).

The curriculum, and its teachers, are restricted on how much information than can provide to their students. The ACF states that “[i]nformation on contraceptives, if included, must be…presented only as it supports the abstinence message being presented. Curriculum must not promote or endorse, distribute or demonstrate the use of contraception or instruct students in contraceptive usage” (p. 1) (emphasis mine). The reason for the omission of comprehensive contraceptive education is explained by abstinence-only supporter, Linda Klepacki, who says that teaching children about condoms and abstinence, sends them a mixed message. She says, “In other areas of health education as well as abstinence, the highest health standard is communicated (i.e. alcohol, drugs, cigarette use, weapon carrying, etc.) The healthiest choice for school-age youth is to remain sexually abstinent.” However, this logic falls apart when applied to other activities. There are risks to playing football or riding in a car and yet we do not teach our children to abstain from those activities. Instead, he or she is taught the proper way to wear his or her protective equipment and a passenger is taught to wear his or her seat belt. In the same manner, so should students be taught the proper way to use sexual protection. In addition, they should also be taught the “rules” of the game. They need training in making good choices, choosing quality friends, developing and maintaining healthy relationships, sexual and not.

The ACF also states that the curriculum must contain material consistent with eight principles.

A. It is essential that the abstinence education curriculum has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity (p. 2).

Abstinence-only supporters claim there are benefits to abstaining and yet Alan Farnham (Is Sex Necessary?), reports that regular sexual intercourse has many mental and health benefits, ranging from decreased depression to a reduced risk of heart disease (2003).

B. It is critical that the abstinence education curriculum teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-aged children (p. 2).

During an evaluation of five years of abstinence-only education in Arizona, “eighty percent of students reported that they were likely to become sexually active by the time they were 20 years old” (Hauser. 2004). Why is abstinence until marriage the expected standard? It certainly is not based in reality. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that over 70 percent of girls and 60 percent of boys report having had sex before they turn twenty (2009, p. 7). The expectation of abstinence until marriage is an expectation based on the morality of the religious and is, quite frankly, a ridiculous one. Time would be much better spent teaching students how to have sex in as safe a manner as possible once they choose to become sexually active; physically safe and psychologically safe as well.

C. Abstinence education curriculum must teach that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems (pp. 2,3).

Subthemes to “C” are to give students the statistics and rates of failure for condoms and other contraceptives. Representative Henry Waxman found that “abstinence-only curricula contain false and misleading information about the effectiveness of contraceptives.” Several of the curricula cite a 1993 study (which was rejected by the Department of Health and Human Services), which states that condoms only reduce HIV infections by 69 percent. One curriculum states: “[T]he popular claim that ‘condoms help prevent the spread of STDs,’ is not supported by the data” (quoted in Waxman. 2004, pp. 8-10).

Uganda’s fight against the spread of HIV would suggest otherwise. Professor W. Phillips Shively summarizes Uganda’s success in Power and Choice. In 1991, the AIDS infection rate had reached about 15 percent. By 2005, it had dropped to 7 percent. President Musevini achieved this successful reduction when he began promoting the usage of condoms with his simple, straightforward plan. Titled ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, and Condoms), his program was able to promote condom usage while embracing and encouraging the traditional values of abstinence until marriage and monogamy. Without the addition of increased condom usage, Uganda would not have seen the 50 percent reduction in HIV infection they’ve been able to achieve. (2008. pp 93, 94) Obviously, condoms work.

D. It is required that the abstinence education curriculum teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity (p. 3).

Buss and Shackelford, authors of Susceptibility to Infidelity, found that about fifty percent of married people will not remain monogamous (1997, p. 194). Marty Friedman, author of Straight Talk for Men About Marriage, cites on his website that 41 percent of the population is not married and 24 percent have never been married (2009) and yet, according to Lawrence B. Finer, PhD, 80 percent of unmarried men and women will have had sex by the time they are 44 years old (2007. p. 74). Obviously, sexual activity regulated to within only a “mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage” is not the expected norm of human sexual activity and it is erroneous to prop up an unrealistic standard for youth and expect them to meet it when most adults to not.

E. It is essential that the abstinence education curriculum teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects (p. 4).

Representative Waxman found no scientific support for these statements. In fact, he writes that “one curriculum tells youth that a long list of personal problems – including isolation, jealousy, poverty, heartbreak, substance abuse, unstable longterm commitment, sexual violence, embarrassment, depression, personal disappointment, feelings of being used, loss of honesty, loneliness, and suicide – ‘can be eliminated by being abstinent until marriage’” (2004, pp. 20-21). Alan Farnham writes, “Having regular and enthusiastic sex…confers a host of measurable physiological advantages, be you male or female. (This assumes that you are engaging in sex without contracting a sexually transmitted disease.)” (2003). However, it is hard to engage in sex without contracting a sexually transmitted disease when one has had no education in how to go about protecting oneself. Abstinence-only education’s omission of education on correct condom usage is more likely to cause “harmful psychological and physical effects” than “regular and enthusiastic sex” practiced safely is.

F. It is critical that the abstinence education curriculum teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society (pp. 4-5).

Teaching a student about the harmful consequences of something but not providing him or her with the resources to avoid it – resources beyond abstinence – is worse than a pointless waste of time and money, it is negligence to the extreme.

G. Abstinence education curriculum must teach young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances (p. 5-6).

H. It is required that the abstinence education curriculum teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity (p. 6)

Some of the principles of abstinence-only education are commendable. Attaining a degree of self-sufficiency before becoming sexual active is a good goal to shoot for. However, like many goals, there may be bumps along the road that abstinence-only education does not prepare a teen to handle. Teaching teens how to avoid unwanted sexual advances is good. Teaching them that condoms are ineffective is wrong. Teaching kids about the cost of parenthood is good. Blaming mental health problems on premarital sex is bad.

While abstinence-only education may appear to be the answer to STDs and unwed teen parents, it is doing much more to exacerbate the problem than to solve it. Logical fallacies, misinformation, outright lies – these seem to be the standard for abstinence-only education. As such, abstinence-only education needs to be removed from our school curricula. It has no place there; certainly not funded through public funds. Teens need to have real information, real facts. In short, they need the truth and not a thinly veiled religious curriculum based on unrealistic expectations of morality and lies about the effects of sexual activity. Sadly, many adults are unwilling or unable to teach their children the lessons they truly need: how to choose friends; how to choose significant others, for marriage or not; how to make good life decisions; how to be themselves in a healthy and beneficial way. These lessons are not easy. They are not easy to learn nor are they easy to teach but we are definitely not going to find an answer by propagating misinformation, religious bias, and lies.

References

Buss, David M. and Shackelford, Todd K. (1997). Susceptibility to infidelity. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 193-221

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexual and reproductive health of persons aged 10-24 years – United States, 2002—2007, Morbidity and Morality Weekly Report. July 17, 2009/58(SS06);1-58

Else-Quest, N. M.; Hyde, J. S.; DeLamater, J. D. (2005, May). Context counts: long-term sequelae of premarital intercourse or abstinence. Journal of Sex Research. Retrieved August 22, 2009, from Find Articles database, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_2_42/ai_n13822486/pg_8/

Farnham, Alan. (2003, August 10). Is sex necessary?. Forbes.com. Retrieved on August 23, 2009 from http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/08/cz_af_1008health.html

Finer, Lawrence B. PhD. (2007, January-February). Trends in premarital sex in the United States, 1954 —2003. Public Health Reports, 73-78

Friedman, Marty. (n.d.). Marriage and divorce statistics. Retrieved August 23, 2009, from http://www.meninmarriage.com/article05.htm

Klepacki, Linda. (n.d.). Abstinence Education: Myths and the Truth. Focus on the Family Issue Analysis. Retrieved August 23, 2009, from http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/abstinence/A000002153.cfm

National Association of School Psychologists. (2003, April 12). Position statement on sexuality education. Retrieved August 22, 2009, from http://nasponline.org/about_nasp/pospaper_sexed.aspx

Porter, Curtis (2006). Guidance regarding curriculum content. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, Family and Youth Bureau Retrieved August 23, 2009 from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/abstinence/cbaeguidance.htm

Shively, W. Phillips. (2008) Power and choice: An introduction to political science. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill

Waxman, Henry A. (2004, December). The content of federally funded abstinence-only education programs. The United States House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform – Minority Staff, Special Investigations Divisions

Heads up! February 13, 2009

Just wanted to give you all a heads up regarding a new and fascinating blog. Actually, as many of you may know, I started blogging on Yahoo360 (the world’s worst blogging site) and blogged there for over a year. Not wanting to loose a year’s worth of blogs when Yahoo decides to can Yahoo360 (the world’s worst blogging site), I decided to repost them on WordPress. But I didn’t want to post them on here as they would be all out of order and it would weird things up as so much has changed since then. I mean, in one of my first blogs on Yahoo360 (the world’s worst blogging site) I write about how much I love the military life and how excited I am to be an involved ‘military wife’ etc, etc. Put that next to a blog in which I say, “I hate the Air Force. They are screwing Israel over. I never see him. Jael never sees him. His supervisors aren’t working 60 hours a week, why is he? He has to be at work but he’s not doing anything. The military did this stupid thing, that stupid thing. Blah blah blah.” It would just be confusing and weird.

So, the old blogs are at preladyrebecca.wordpress.com, and since I can’t make them archive as Winter of 2006 and on, I just dated each entry. The title of the first blog is November 6, 2006. These blogs are imported here and are in the archives. Feel free to browse through them. I think 2006-2007 are the old ones.

And I just want to add this little note. A lot of my views and opinions have changed in the last two years. The example above is only one example. If you read something and you feel it’s out of character for the person who’s writing LadyRebecca, that’s because LadyRebeccca is a constantly changing and growing human being. And if you are confused, please ask. That’s what the comment field is for. That and I love getting comments. It lets me know that people are reading my blogs, which makes me happy!

The Homeschool Family. *snap* *snap* May 9, 2008

Okay, before I get to the exciting pictures, I have to share this video my sister-in-law posted on her site. This is absolutely hilarious. And as she says, “This very funny video highlighting some great homeschool stereotypes.” Without further ado, here it is…

Sleepy and Bored March 11, 2008

I am so incredibly tired. I’ve spent the last two hours reading blogs of expatriots, some from the US, some from Australia, some from Britian, and I think one from Canada. So much information. I am not sure where to begin. I want to read everything right now. But I also want to sleep.

Israel stayed home with Jael again last night so I could go to a baby shower. It was a lot of fun. The drive was long but we carpooled so I had three other ladies along for the ride and it was a lot of fun. We ate chips and salsa, fajitas and empanadas (sp?). We drank margaritas. I had one first thing so I’d be good to drive four hours later. We laughed and told birth stories. Some of the ladies have troubled marriages and it makes me sad. I’m so blessed to have Israel and he’s so wonderful.

I told him as I left that when he wants a guy’s night out, all he has to do is say the word and he’s got a free evening. I think he’s stayed with Jael for three evenings in the last two weeks. I feel like life has been so busy and yet nothing’s really happening. Strange, no?

Jael is reading. Yup. Reading. Some of the more complicated (okay, most of the complicated) words still stump her but she’s doing amazingly well. We did some school today; just some worksheets form a big book of “Basic Skills Worksheets” I got a couple of months ago. She tore through things that a couple of months ago stumped her so she’s definitely making progress.

I don’t really have anything else to say. I’m bored. I should go put away clothes and cut up stuff for supper but I just want to take a nap. *sigh*

Oh wait! The time on our computer is an hour fast! It’s not 4 pm! It’s only 3 pm! I have time to take a 15 minute nap! (Forgive me, my ever enduring husband.)

Good-bye!

The Worst Advice EVER!!! March 10, 2008

You may think the title of this blog is a bit presumptious. Wait until you read this before deciding I mistitled it.

Years ago, a friend recommended Michael and Debbie Pearl’s books on childrearing. We read a couple and while they had some good advice and interesting ideas, for the most part, they were a couple of freaky, freaky people. Before realizing the full extent of their creapiness, I signed up for their newsletter/magazine. After receiving it for a couple of months, we realized we didn’t even want it in our house. Neither Israel nor I wanted to write a letter canceling our subscription for fear that we would be chastized, because obviously, if we didn’t like what we were reading it was because we were being convicted and therefore needed to be reading it. And from the letters Michael Pearl received and the advice he gives, that would not be out of character.

We moved from Kansas City to California and the magazines followed us. I finally got online and after some searching was able to discontinue our subscription without having to talk to anyone. YAY!

Yeah…unfortunately, the canceling didn’t seem to take. We moved to Mississippi and continued to get the magazine. We never gave them a forwarding address and yet, here’s the magazine. We moved to a new place and yesterday, what should be in my mailbox but another “NGJ” (No Great Joy – the name of the Pearl’s ministry) magazine. This magazine did not have a forwarded sticker on it. Nope. It had my name and my current address. I don’t understand but am freaked the heck out.

Then Israel opened it and started reading it, thinking perhaps we’d find something ridiculous to blog about. Did he ever. Below, in blue ink, is a letter from a reader and Michael’s advice.

I have tried to read your articles to find an answer to my problem, but I have not been able to find one. So, I write to you in secret. My husband has been talking with another woman for several years without my knowledge. I just found out, and I’m so hurt. My husband says he’s sorry and that he tried to stop several times, but could not get victory.

This is the second time this has happened. My husband is a saved man in the ministry, and this girl has a high position in the ministry as well. I have decided to keep my mouth shut, because I don’t want my husband’s ministry to have a scar. I need help though, because I’m so hurt inside and have no one to talk to. I have to face this girl every week and act as though nothing is wrong. My husband has to work in the office with her a least once a week and act as if nothing is wrong. I don’t want him to talk to her, look at her, or even smile at her, etc., but if he acts funny, I know suspicions will arise in me.

My husband said that he would start being open with me when I ask him questions or ask to see his phone. But I feel like he’s starting to get irritated with me already, as I keep asking and I’m scared of his temper. My husband admits that he has a problem with wanted attention from women, and I fear that it may happen again. I feel so alone and I’m fighting so much with bitterness, anger, thoughts of their conversations and wondering why I wasn’t or am not good enough for him. I feel so betrayed.

I love my husband and our children, and I want him to do the Lord’s work. I don’t want to do anything that will destroy his ministry. Please help me with some advice.

Michael answers:

Fight for your man. Go to the woman personally, and tell her to get another job or you will make her wish she had. Tell your husband that you expect either him or her to quit and go somewhere else. If not, go to work with him and don’t let him out of your sight.

Here are my thoughts on this little tidbit…

I have tried to read your articles to find an answer to my problem, but I have not been able to find one. So, I write to you in secret. First problem. Why are you doing this in secret? Your husband already knows you are concerned. If he is actually interested in “victory” you shouldn’t have to hide the fact that you are seeking advice, unless, of course, he thinks the Pearl’s are a bunch of crackpots. My husband has been talking with another woman for several years without my knowledge. Talking, huh? What a cad. I just found out, You just found out. This woman and your husband have enough of a relationship that you are concerned and you are just finding out. You should be involved enough (and your husband should allow you access to his life enough) that you know about friendships, male or female, before then hit the “years” mark. and I’m so hurt. My husband says he’s sorry and that he tried to stop several times, but could not get victory. I’m not sure what he’s supposed to get victory over. If all that’s happening is conversations, where’s the sin to be victorious over? Maybe you aren’t being as honest as you need to be? Maybe they are having sex in the pews but you are too embarrassed to say so?

This is the second time this has happened. The second time he’s talked to a woman or the second time he’s hidden a relationship from you? My husband is a saved man in the ministry, and this girl has a high position in the ministry as well. I have decided to keep my mouth shut, because I don’t want my husband’s ministry to have a scar. That’s right. Because what’s really important here is that you all keep a nice happy public image while you die from the inside out. You should be more concerned with you marriage, your husband’s soul (if indeed there is sin occurring), and your own self respect and health (if you are continuing to share the bed with a man who’s sleeping around), than with public image. I need help though, because I’m so hurt inside and have no one to talk to. Ironically, no one to talk to except a man you aren’t married to. Hmmm. Ironies aside, why are you alone? Why don’t you have friends you can share this with? If it’s because you are too afraid of “ministry scars” you are a fool. Build some friendships that are deeper than what you had for dinner last night. Be vulnerable and open and then accepting and nonjudgemental when your friends are open and vulnerable in return. I have to face this girl every week and act as though nothing is wrong. Why must you pretend nothing is wrong if something is? Of course, if all that has happened is that your husband and this girl have been friends, than you are overreacting and there isn’t anything wrong. If there’s been an affair, the Bible has guidelines for how adultery should be handled in the church. Follow the Scriptures you claim to believe. My husband has to work in the office with her a least once a week and act as if nothing is wrong. See previous statement. I don’t want him to talk to her, look at her, or even smile at her, etc., You have just given much more validity to their “relationship” by putting all these rules in place. What had been a friendship has now been classified as “illicit.” Again, if there has been adultery, it needs to be dealt with at a corporate level. but if he acts funny, I know suspicions will arise in me. I think you need to be in therapy. Seriously. You shouldn’t be this upset and this “suspicious” over a friendship. And if your husband has committed adultery, you probably need to be in therapy to deal with the betrayal and the hurt.

My husband said that he would start being open with me when I ask him questions or ask to see his phone. Again with the not trusting. He’s a grown man. I would get irritated if Israel wanted to count the cookies every day to make sure I wasn’t having more than my fair share (food being my addiction). But I feel like he’s starting to get irritated with me already, as I keep asking and I’m scared of his temper. Stop the train. You are afraid of you husband. This should not be a letter asking for advice on how to stop him from talking to another woman. This should be a letter asking for advice on how to get yourself and your children out of the house without endangering anyone needlessly. If you are afraid of you husband, get the hell out of the house. You both need counseling. Him for being angry or violent enough to make you afraid; you for staying in a dangerous relationship for all these years or, and this is the clincher, for being willing to say your husband is abusive (what else do you think “afraid of his temper” means?) when in reality you don’t have the maturity to deal with normal adult relationships, which include some conflict. My husband admits that he has a problem with wanted attention from women, (I’m a woman and I like attention from woman. I like attention from men, too. I enjoy people noticing me. I also enjoy people noticing my husband. I like it when people think he’s neat and want to talk to him. I find it very complimentary to me. I chose well.) and I fear that it may happen again. What happen again? Talking to another human being who happens to be female? I feel so alone and I’m fighting so much with bitterness, anger, thoughts of their conversations and wondering why I wasn’t or am not good enough for him. I feel so betrayed. Again, you need friends, girl. You need to make some friends outside of your immediate family. You need to deal with your bitterness. That crap will eat you up from the inside out. Seriously. Bitterness will destroy you. Anger is not necessarily bad. If something wrong had happened, you I should be angry. Of course, if you are angry because he chats with a coworker, you do probably need to be dealing with anger issues. Stop thinking about their conversations and ask your husband what they’ve talked about. Maybe you’ll find out that they went to the same highschool and have many mutual friends. Maybe they both like painting and have been discussing different water color techniques. Maybe they are having phone sex and you do have reason to be upset. You will never know until you ask you husband and he has the integrity to tell you the truth. And if he doesn’t, a “scar” on his ministry is the least of you problems.

I love my husband and our children, and I want him to do the Lord’s work. So much that you are willing to sacrifice your marriage so he doesn’t look bad. I don’t want to do anything that will destroy his ministry. Oh, like keeping your mouth shut until he has a high profile, public affair that blows up and makes the whole Christian community look bad? Thanks. Please help me with some advice. Or, give me some really crappy advice that won’t help at all.

1. “Fight for your man.” Not bad in and of itself. But the way he advises to go about fighting for her man…yikes.

2. “Go to the woman personally, and tell her to get another job or you will make her wish she had.” Okay, okay, I am trying to write about this but the laughter in my brain just won’t stop. The Pearl’s pride themselves on being based on the bible. Where do they find support for making someone’s life miserable in order to get your way in the Bible? Because that’s what he’s saying. First, you make an ultimatum. “Quit or I’ll make you wish you had.” Okay, then when she doesn’t quit, what are you supposed to do? Start slashing her tires? Begin telling people what a slut she is? Maybe egging her house and calling at all hours of the night is the answer. With open ended advice like that, anything is possible. Michael stresses consistency and following through with threats in his parenting advice. Why would dealing with adults be any different? So, if this girl doesn’t quit, now this woman is stuck with having to make someone else’s life miserable. Sounds like a great way to model Christ.

3. “Tell your husband that you expect either him or her to quit and go somewhere else.” Whoa, Whoa, whoa. TELL you husband? TELL? I thought that Michael Pearl supported women being submissive to their husbands. Maybe telling your husband what to do means something else to him but to me, it smacks of being unsubmissive. (I am NOT agreeing with Michael Pearl’s view of submission but simply pointing out his own inconsistencies.) My question when I hear this is “Or what?” What if he doesn’t quit or she doesn’t quit? Oh, yeah, last sentence…

4. “If not, go to work with him and don’t let him out of your sight.” Wow. Well, that is certainly one way to build trust and faith in a relationship. And I’ll bet his boss will be really pleased when wife and kids (because they should all be homeschooled if you are a follower of the Pearl’s) show up to shadow Daddy at work. And what if you husband doesn’t happen to work in the ministry where that sort of thing might be acceptable? What if one’s husband works in a controlled or secure area? What if he works in a construction site? What are you going to do when he has to leave town for a business trip? Come on, Michael.

There are just so many things wrong. I think the first thing that needs to be addressed is the truthfulness of this letter. I don’t think she’s telling the whole story. Either her husband has done more than just talk previously in their marriage or he’s doing more than just talking right now. OR, and this is a big OR, she’s seriously this worked up because her husband is talking with a coworker.

My husband and I have a great relationship. We also have great friendships outside of each other. One of my best friends, is also one of his best friends. She came down and spent two weeks with us last summer. We went up and stayed with her for two weeks this fall. She plans on coming to Germany and staying with us for 6 months. Israel and she talk on the phone once a week or so, sometimes less often, sometimes more often. Sometimes I’m home, sometimes I’m not. If I’m not, Israel makes sure to tell me so that it doesn’t seem as though he’s hiding anything. I’m not concerned about him having an affair with her. Do you know why?

Because I’ve made a conscious decision to trust my husband and my best friend. Would I want them to go on a month long back packing trip through the Rockies by themselves? No. If such a situation happened (through no fault of their own, like a plane crash or something) would I believe them when they said nothing inappropriate happened? Yes, I would. I can’t live any other way. If I can not trust my husband to be honest with me, than there’s nothing I can do. Yes, I could follow him around and watch his every move. If he doesn’t respect me enough to tell me the truth, why would he respect me enough to change his behavior just because I’m watching. And if the only reason he’s behaving is because I’m watching, what happens when I can’t watch him?

The only way to have a relationship with any meaning is to trust. What Israel does is his responsibility. If he has an affair, there will be consequences and he knows that. If he looks at too much porn, there are consequences. If I eat a whole bag of Hershey’s Kisses, there are consequences. If I don’t clean the house and he has to come home to a pigsty, there are consequences. If I have an affair, there are consequences.

Part of being an adult is taking responsibility for your actions. Israel and I have made a commitment to be 100% honest with each other, which includes telling the other when we’ve screwed up.

We don’t hide things. Why be married if you aren’t going to be soul mates?

We don’t lie to each other. How could I lie with a man, allowing him access to me while I am more vulnerable than at any other time, if I’m lying to him and vice versa?

We are honest about our weaknesses. How can you address a problem if you don’t know it exists? How can we be a help to each other if we don’t share our struggles?

We help each other and lean on each other when we need a shoulder to help us along. Why have a relationship if you aren’t going to be bettered and neither is your partner?

My point is that Michael Pearl’s advice smacks of distrust. It smacks of someone who thinks the best way to find out what’s going on is to follow the person around. The only way to make sure your spouse is doing what they are supposed to is to shadow them. Where’s the trust? Where’s the love? Love doesn’t do that.

God doesn’t hound us, following after us, waiting for us to screw us so He can pounce on us. God doesn’t give us ultimatums. Well, only the “follow Me or suffer eternal damnation” one but other than that, God doesn’t say, “Preach the gospel here or I’m going to give you fecal incontinence.” God says, do this. God sets the standard. We make a choice of whether or not we are going to strive to meet that standard. If we decide to not meet it, than we suffer the consequences, be what they may. If we decide to meet the standard, than we must do all we can to meet it. If we are unable, God is there to help us. He’s more than willing to help us. I think He enjoys giving us a hand for that last heave up the mountainside. He’s not just going to do it all Himself. He expects us to put some effort into it.

The conclusion I’ve come to is that I’m going to have to make this magazine stop. This man’s advice is so bad, I don’t even want it in my home. I am not looking forward to having to speak to them or write to them or in any way alert them to my existence but this drivel has to stop coming into my home. I get enough drivel through the news.

Aaaaahhhhh February 28, 2008

You know, it is just amazing to me what a good night’s sleep will do. Life is so much more handleable today. We are supposed to have “abundant sunshine” today so we should be able to play at the park after Story Time. Tuesday was raining, last Thursday was raining and we were sick the Tuesday before that and the Thursday before that our friends weren’t able to stay and play. So, after three weeks of trying, Brodie and Jael and Isaac might actually get to play at the park together.

I am so glad that we have decided to home school Jael. Brodie just turned two. Isaac is about a year and a half. Jael can play fine with them. There is a little girl at play group who is a year older than Jael and she can play just fine with her. We went to one of Israel’s co-worker’s son’s birthday party a week ago and she played fine with the six and seven year olds. Yay for not being peer stratified!

I read an article last night about a teacher who has been verbally abusing the children in her class, calling them stupid and mean and threatening them. One of her students came to class with a tape recorder in her backpack. The student’s mother had put it there because she was concerned that the teacher might not be acting in an all together healthy manner. The mom’s fears were not unfounded. When presented with this information, the school board admitted that they’d had to discipline this teacher the year before for slapping a four-year old child. The discipline consisted of, get a load of this, one day suspension without pay.

*GASP*

A whole day with no pay! You mean, she took a day off and didn’t get paid for it? The horror!

Seriously though, there are a ton of problems with this situation. I’m going to start with the slapping because if that had been handled correctly, this second story wouldn’t have happened. The teacher should have been ordered to attend intesive thearapy and if she was unwilling than she should have been fired. My husband and I believe physical punishment has a place in a parent’s discipline regime. However, we don’t slap her. Slapping is a reaction and not discipline. We don’t ever spank her when we are angry. We don’t discipline based on how we feel about her behavior. We discipline because she has disobeyed and must be taught that there are consequences to disobedience. Slapping is reactive and is not thought out. So, not only was the teacher disciplining in a way reserved only for the child’s parents (corporal punishment), she was doing it badly.

Four year olds should not be in school. I’m an ardent supporter of homeschooling and we’ve started some with our four year old but only as much as she’s enthusiastic about. We’re considering not starting formal education with her until she’s about eight based on research showing that kids who don’t start formal schooling until 8 but are allowed to explore their world and learn through play, catch up with their conventionally schooled peers within six to twelve months. The “late starters” have better social and creative skills than their more heavily schooled peers.

Then you have the yelling at kids. What makes someone think this is okay? I mean, yeah, maybe your parents were verbally abusive but why would that make you think it’s okay to speak to other people’s kids that way? Don’t they cover the proper way to speak to kids and control behavior issues as a part of the “becoming a teacher schooling”? If that isn’t covered, than why in the hell are the masses letting these people spend eight hours a day to “professionally” teach their kids?

My husband has worked on cars since he was about eight years old. He worked as a Ford mechanic for about a year and has much experience working on a variety of cars in his personal time. He’s fond of saying, when presented with a car problem he’d not encountered before, “Why send my car to the dealership to have them screw it up when I can screw it up at home for free?” I ask the same thing about school. “Why send my kids away all day to be screwed up by a stranger when I can do it at home?” And of course, hopefully avoid some of the screwing up.

After ranting about strangers for a bit, I am feeling downright happy.

And I just cleaned off all (well most anyway) of the horizontal surfaces in my house (well, kitchen at least). I also swept the kitchen and vacuumed the house. No, I’m not manic. Israel asked me to clean the house today. A totally reasonable request but one I resented anyway. Until I got started and then it was so nice to have clean surfaces and a clean floor that I didn’t mind being reminded of my wifely duties.

Jael and I are off to Story Time.

Until next time…