Gov’t busybodies have killed family rights

Gov’t busybodies have killed family rights

The supposed standard for child custody in family courts is the “best interest of the child.” The Vermont Supreme Court has now extended that to the best interest of the dog.

While awaiting court judgment, a couple made a temporary agreement to share time with the dog.

The court found that the husband “treats the dog like a dog,” while the wife treats the dog like a child. The husband is a veterinarian and has a more balanced view, according to the judge’s personal dog opinions, so he got sole custody of Belle.

Since the court treated the dog like a child in applying a “best interest” analysis, it explained the difference between child and dog custody under the law. In both cases, the judge can override the rights of the adults and even reject agreements that the couple may have signed.


The difference, according to the Vermont Supreme Court, is that the legislature has given the family court judge authority to play a continuing role in supervising a child’s parents, but no authority to micro-manage dog care or, as the court says, “the care and sharing of a companion animal.” In other words, the court treats a parent like a child, and a dog owner like an adult.

Barring a criminal offense, a single parent has a constitutional right to rear the child as she pleases, but when a child has two legal parents, each parent loses his or her rights if the other parent brings an issue to family court. Vermont has not defined the best interest of a child or a dog but leaves it to the bias of the judges. As long as judges are supervising parents, then parents no longer have the right or authority to use their best judgment.

Marriage and family are not just being redefined to suit the gays and lesbians. They are being redefined to kill family autonomy and parental rights, and to bring child-rearing under the supervision of government so-called experts


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.