This is a doctrine of old english law that has been hijacked by our government to steal our children.

Original it was a "insurance plan" promises from the crown, for those who died in battle to know that the crown would care for the surviving family members / children. As such the legal obligation to care for, came with a pseudo title of ownership / responsibility of.

But our government morphed it into something much more sinister. Claiming the state has primary ownership of the child and parents claim is subordinate to that of the state, and this claim originates at birth of child, not death of parent.

In the interest of public good.

It is the legal frame work that gives them the "right" to remove your child without convicting you of any crime. Abuse and neglect use to be the threshold, to be proven in a court of criminal law under criminal standards, no longer, your right of parenthood can be striped by arbitrary infractions as declared by a court no longer bound by the constitution, by what is considered an administrative ruling not a adjudication.

By passing the "due process clause" of the constitution. Since your children should be your most valued possessions, the standards of removal should be higher not less than just "the benefit of the state" in some civil court of chattel or whatever the state disagrees with. :-)

How many little ones do you care for?

Tell me some funny stories of the terrible twos.

The spirit of freedom starts early as the child claims right of self, in a all out rebellion, not yet limited by social restraint of civil pretentions.

No one can own the spirit of a child, is what I think Gibran was writing about.

This is a doctrine of old english law that has been hijacked by our government to steal our children.

Original it was a "insurance plan" promises from the crown, for those who died in battle to know that the crown would care for the surviving family members / children. As such the legal obligation to care for, came with a pseudo title of ownership / responsibility of.

But our government morphed it into something much more sinister. Claiming the state has primary ownership of the child and parents claim is subordinate to that of the state, and this claim originates at birth of child, not death of parent.

In the interest of public good.

It is the legal frame work that gives them the "right" to remove your child without convicting you of any crime. Abuse and neglect use to be the threshold, to be proven in a court of criminal law under criminal standards, no longer, your right of parenthood can be striped by arbitrary infraction as declared by a court no longer bound by the constitution, by what is considered an administrative ruling not a adjudication.

By passing the "due process clause" of the constitution. Since your children should be your most valued possessions, the standards of removal should be higher not less than just the benefit of the state in some civil court of chattel or whatever the state disagrees with. :-)

How many little ones do you care for?

Tell me some funny stories of the terrible twos.

The spirit of freedom starts early as the child claims right of self, in a all out rebellion, not yet limited by social restraint of civil pretentions.

No one can own the spirit of a child, is what I think Gibran was writing about.

This is a doctrine of old english law that has been hijacked by our government to steal our children.

Original it was a "insurance plan" promises from the crown, for those who died in battle to know that the crown would care for the surviving family members / children. As such the legal obligation to care for, came with a pseudo title of ownership / responsibility of.

But our government morphed it into something much more sinister. Claiming the state has primary ownership of the child and parents claim is subordinate to that of the state, and this claim originates at birth of child, not death of parent.

In the interest of public good.

It is the legal frame work that gives them the "right" to remove your child without convicting you of any crime. Abuse and neglect use to be the threshold, to be proven in a court of criminal law under criminal standards, no longer, your right of parenthood can be striped by arbitrary infraction as declared by a court no longer bound by the constitution, by what is considered an administrative ruling no an adjudication.

By passing the "due process clause" of the constitution. Since your children should be your most valued possessions, the standards of removal should be higher not less than just the benefit of the state in some civil court of chattel or whatever the state disagrees with. :-)

How many little ones do you care for?

Tell me some funny stories of the terrible twos.

The spirit of freedom starts early as the child claims right of self, in a all out rebellion, not yet limited by social restraint of civil pretentions.

No one can own the spirit of a child, is what I think Gibran was writing about.

This is a doctrine of old english law that has been hijacked by our government to steal our children.

Original it was a "insurance plan" promises from the crown, for those who died in battle to know that the crown would care for the surviving family members / children. As such the legal obligation to care for, came with a pseudo title of ownership / responsibility of.

But our government morphed it into something much more sinister. Claiming the state has primary ownership of the child and parents claim is subordinate to that of the state, and this claim originates at birth of child, not death of parent.

In the interest of public good.

It is the legal frame work that gives them the "right" to remove your child without convicting you of any crime. Abuse and neglect use to be the threshold, to be proven in a court of criminal law, no longer, your right of parenthood can be striped by arbitrary infraction as declared by a court no longer bound by the constitution, by what is considered an administrative ruling.

By passing the "due process clause" of the constitution. Since your children should be your most valued possessions, the standards of removal should be higher not less than just the benefit of the state in some civil court of chattel or whatever the state disagrees with. :-)

How many little ones do you care for?

Tell me some funny stories of the terrible twos.

The spirit of freedom starts early as the child claims right of self, in a all out rebellion, not yet limited by social restraint of civil pretentions.

No one can own the spirit of a child, is what I think Gibran was writing about.

This is a doctrine of old english law that has been hijacked by our government to steal our children.

Original it was a "insurance plan" promises from the crown, for those who died in battle to know that the crown would care for the surviving family members / children. As such the legal obligation to care for, came with a pseudo title of ownership / responsibility of.

But our government morphed it into something much more sinister. Claiming the state has primary ownership of the child and parents claim is subordinate to that of the state, and this claim originates at birth of child, not death of parent.

In the interest of public good.

It is the legal frame work that gives them the "right" to remove your child without convicting you of any crime. Abuse and neglect use to be the threshold, to be proven in a court of criminal law, no longer, your right of parenthood can be striped by arbitrary infraction as declared by a court no longer bound by the constitution, by what is considered an administrative ruling.

By passing the "due process clause" of the constitution. Since your children should be your most valued possessions, the standards of removal should be higher not less than just the benefit of the state in some civil court of chattel or whatever the state disagrees with. :-)

How many little ones do you care for?

Tell me some funny stories of the terrible twos.

The spirit of freedom starts early as the child claims right of self in a all out rebellion.

No one can own the spirit of a child, is what I think Gibran was writing about.

This is a doctrine of old english law that has been hijacked by our government to steal our children.

Original it was a "insurance plan" promises from the crown, for those who died in battle to know that the crown would care for the surviving family members / children. As such the legal obligation to care for, came with a pseudo title of ownership / responsibility of.

But our government morphed it into something much more sinister. Claiming the state has primary ownership of the child and parents claim is subordinate to that of the state, and this claim originates at birth of child, not death of parent.

In the interest of public good.

It is the legal frame work that gives them the "right" to remove your child without convicting you of any crime. Abuse and neglect use to be the threshold, to be proven in a court of criminal law, no longer, your right of parenthood can be striped by arbitrary infraction as declared by a court no longer bound by the constitution, by what is considered an administrative ruling.

By passing the "due process clause" of the constitution. Since your children should be your most valued possessions, the standards of removal should be higher not less than just the benefit of the state in some civil court of chattel or whatever the state disagrees with. :-)

How many little ones do you care for?

Tell me some funny stories of the terrible twos.

The spirit of freedom starts early as the child claims right of self in a all out rebellion.

This is a doctrine of old english law that has been hijacked by our government to steal our children.

Original it was a "insurance plan" promises from the crown, for those who died in battle to know that the crown would care for the surviving family members / children. As such the legal obligation to care for, came with a pseudo title of ownership / responsibility of.

But our government morphed it into something much more sinister. Claiming the state has primary ownership of the child and parents claim is only subordinate, and this claim originates at birth of child, not death of parent.

In the interest of public good.

It is the legal frame work that gives them the "right" to remove your child without convicting you of any crime. Abuse and neglect use to be the threshold, to be proven in a court of criminal law, no longer, your right of parenthood can be striped by arbitrary infraction as declared by a court no longer bound by the constitution, by what is considered an administrative ruling.

By passing the "due process clause" of the constitution. Since your children should be your most valued possessions, the standards of removal should be higher not less than just the benefit of the state in some civil court of chattel or whatever the state disagrees with. :-)

How many little ones do you care for?

Tell me some funny stories of the terrible twos.

The spirit of freedom starts early as the child claims right of self in a all out rebellion.

This is a doctrine of old english law that has been hijacked by our government to steal our children.

Original it was a "insurance plan" promises from the crown, for those who died in battle to know that the crown would care for the surviving family members / children. As such the legal obligation to care for, came with a pseudo title of ownership / responsibility of.

But our government morphed it into something much more sinister. Claiming the state has primary ownership of the child and parents claim is only subordinate, and this claim originates at birth of child, not death of parent.

In the interest of public good.

It is the legal frame work that gives them the "right" to remove your child without convicting you of any crime. Abuse and neglect use to be the threshold, to be proven in a court of criminal law, no longer, your right of parenthood can be striped by arbitrary infraction as declared by a court no longer bound by the constitution, by what is considered an administrative ruling.

By passing the "due process clause" of the constitution. Since your children should be your most valued possessions, the standards of removal should be higher not less than just the benefit of the state in some civil court of chattery or whatever the state disagrees with. :-)

How many little ones do you care for?

Tell me some funny stories of the terrible twos.

The spirit of freedom starts early as the child claims right of self in a all out rebellion.

This is a doctrine of old english law that has been hijacked by our government to steal our children.

Original it was a "insurance plan" promise from the crown, for those who died in battle to know that the crown would care for the family / children left behind. As such the legal obligation to care for, came with a title of pseudo ownership.

But our government morphed it into something much more sinister. Claiming the state has primary ownership of the child and parents claim is subordinate at birth of child.

It is the legal frame work that gives them the "right" to remove your child without convicting you of any crime.

By passing the "due process clause" of the constitution. Since your children should be your most valued possessions, the standards of removal should be higher not less than just the benefit of the state, or whatever the state disagrees with. :-)

How many little ones do you care for?

Tell me some stories of the terrible twos.

The spirit of freedom starts early.

This is a doctrine of old english law that has been hijacked by our government to steal our children.

Original it was a "insurance plan" promise from the crown, for those who died in battle to know that the crown would care for the family / children left behind. As such the legal obligation to care for, came with a title of pseudo ownership.

But our government morphed it into something much more sinister. Claiming the state has primary ownership of the child and parents claim is subordinate at birth of child.

It is the legal frame work that gives them the "right" to remove your child without convicting you of any crime.

By passing the "due process clause" of the constitution. Since your children should be your most valued possessions, the standards of removal should be higher not less than just the benefit of the state, or what the state disagrees with. :-)

How many little ones do you care for?

Tell me some stories of the terrible twos.

The spirit of freedom starts early.

This is a doctrine of old english law that has been hijacked by our government to steal our children.

Original it was a insurance plan, for those who died in battle to know that the crown would care for the family / children left behind. As such the legal obligation to care for, came with a title of pseudo ownership.

But our government morphed it into something much more sinister. Claiming the state has primary ownership of the child and parents claim is subordinate at birth of child.

It is the legal frame work that gives them the "right" to remove your child without convicting you of any crime.

By passing the "due process clause" of the constitution. Since your children should be your most valued possessions, the standards of removal should be higher not less than just the benefit of the state, or what the state disagrees with. :-)

How many little ones do you care for?

Tell me some stories of the terrible twos.

The spirit of freedom starts early.

This is a doctrine of old english law that has been hijacked by our government to steal our children.

Original it was a insurance plan, for those who died in battle to know that the crown would care for the family / children left behind. As such the legal obligation to care for, came with a title of pseudo ownership.

But our government morphed it into something much more sinister. Claiming the state has primary ownership of the child and parents claim is subordinate at birth of child.

It is the legal frame work that gives them the "right" to remove your child without convicting you of any crime.

By passing the "due process clause" of the constitution. Since your children should be your most valued possession, the standards of removal should be higher not less than just the benefit of the state, or what the state disagrees with. :-)

How many little ones do you care for?

Tell me some stories of the terrible twos.

The spirit of freedom starts early.