California illegitimate governor ignores the fundamental rights of parents to provide for and guide their minor children, which is up until the age of 18.
Supreme Court cases upholding the fundamental rights of appearance and showing that one exceptions are made. They are exceptions not the norm.
Parham v. J. R. (1979): This is the landmark case specifically addressing medical decision-making. The Court ruled that parents have the right, coupled with the high duty, to make medical decisions for their minor children—in this instance, the commitment of a child to a mental health institution. The Court acknowledged the traditional presumption that parents act in the best interests of their children.
Prince v. Massachusetts (1944): The Court famously stated that the "custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents". While the Court upheld state intervention in this case regarding child labor laws, it reinforced the foundational rights of parents to direct the upbringing and medical care of their children, provided it does not cause severe harm.
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972): While centered on education, this case significantly reinforced the long-standing right of parents to guide the religious and physical future and upbringing of their children.o
California illegitimate governor ignores the fundamental rights of parents to provide for and guide their minor children, which is up until the age of 18.
Supreme Court cases upholding the fundamental rights of appearance and showing that one exceptions are made. They are exceptions not the norm.
Parham v. J. R. (1979): This is the landmark case specifically addressing medical decision-making. The Court ruled that parents have the right, coupled with the high duty, to make medical decisions for their minor children—in this instance, the commitment of a child to a mental health institution. The Court acknowledged the traditional presumption that parents act in the best interests of their children.
Prince v. Massachusetts (1944): The Court famously stated that the "custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents". While the Court upheld state intervention in this case regarding child labor laws, it reinforced the foundational rights of parents to direct the upbringing and medical care of their children, provided it does not cause severe harm.
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972): While centered on education, this case significantly reinforced the long-standing right of parents to guide the religious and physical future and upbringing of their children.o
from a 2020 based friend of the court brief:
“This Court has determined that parents have a fundamental right to direct the care, custody, and control of their children. This Court also has determined that the government shall not interfere with this right unless and until a parent is proven unfit.” https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-618/162853/20201207145434898_20-616%20Amicus%20Brief%20The%20Justice%20Foundation%20cert%20stage.pdf