Feds Propose New Apparatus To Monitor How Parents Raise Children


According to a draft proposal released by the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and Education, the feds admit they want to construct a new bureaucratic apparatus that would make them an “equal partner” in how your children are raised.

Filled with Orwellian language and the redefining of terms like “family,” to mean “all the people who play a role in a child’s life,” the draft proposal makes recommendations “on systematically engaging families in their children’s development, learning, and wellness, across early childhood and elementary education settings.”

It describes how agents of the federal government would conduct routine home visits to intervene in the raising of children in order to check on their well-being and provide “monitoring goals for the children at home and [in] the classroom.”

If parents are failing to meet the standards set by the omnipotent state, “evidence-based parenting interventions” will be made to “ensure that children’s social-emotional and behavioral needs are met,” the proposal states.

The draft goes on to say that “it is the position of the Departments [of HHS and Education] that all early childhood programs and schools recognize families as equal partners in improving children’s development, learning and wellness across all settings, and over the course of their children’s developmental and educational experiences.”

In other words, the government thinks they have as much of a right to dictate how children are raised as parents do and are calling for “shared responsibility” between government “professionals” and families.

The proposal makes that point over and over again by saying it in different ways. It calls for “jointly” developing and monitoring goals for children at home and in school, with government employees told to “engage parents as capable, competent partners.”

It seems Big-Pharma would also play a significant role in children’s lives if the proposal is implemented. The draft goes on to recommend “constant monitoring and communication regarding children’s social-emotional and behavioral health.”

It calls for the federal government to “ensure that children’s social-emotional and behavioral needs are met and that families and staff are connected with relevant community partners, such as early childhood mental health consultants and children’s medical homes.”

In addressing “recommendations” for states, which would be incentivized by taxpayer funded federal payoffs, the draft proposal urges state governments to “expand early childhood mental health consultation efforts” that would further seek to relegate children to a system of medication-centered psychiatric services.

Local governments would also be incentivized. If parent “partners” are not participating in a way condoned by the feds, the proposal says local officials should “identify supports that will be offered to parents such as evidence-based parenting interventions.”

By interventions, the feds mean local governments should seek out approved “community partners” that can “provide comprehensive services, such as health, mental health, or housing assistance to meet families’ basic needs” in a way that enables them conduct routine home visits.

“To support ongoing relationship building with families, programs and schools should conduct periodic home visits so that teachers and families can get to know each other and communicate about children’s goals, strengths, challenges, and progress,” the draft proposal states, adding that if such visits are not possible for “all families,” other monitoring requirements should be established.

The draft proposal also calls on schools to “assess families’ needs and wants,” in order to employ direct training for parents on how to raise their kids, stating, “it is important that LEAs [local education agencies], schools and programs have a strategy for supporting family wellbeing… through school social workers…”

The proposal ultimately amounts to nothing more than the all encompassing regulation of family life by the federal government. Families are important and serve as a bulwark against state power. It is where capital is accumulated and passed down. It is where reverence for tradition and ones own private associations are built.

This type of arrangement enables individuals to appeal to something other than the government for aid, justice, and stability. In any totalitarian system you will see the family being attacked for these reasons – again, because it is a barrier to the encroachment of liberty.

It is important that the American people are informed about this proposal. Even though it is in the early stages of becoming policy, the fight to stop it must begin now. Government is not the first-owner of all children and it is certainly not a “partner” in determining how they should be raised.

Please contact your state and local representatives to inform them that accepting federal bribes to implement such measures will not be tolerated.

  • User

    This idea is insane. First it starts slowly as a proposal, then comes sweeping legislation. Every honest and hard working person must demand a Stop to this notion in its tracks. Will it be the rich, famous and powerful that will have their children raised by the state? Or will it just be the serfs and commoners of America who will have their children seized from their homes and raised as pawns to serve the State elite.

    Not my children. Not ever.

    In George Orwell’s Animal Farm the Pigs (elites) steal the baby German shepherds to raise them to protect the pigs from any threat to their “authority”, “interests” or hegemony over the other animals.

  • Angelo Caiazzo

    Hope you’re prepared to shoot me first.

    • Oh undoubtedly they most certainly ARE … I thought that had been pretty clearly demonstrated these last few years that shooting people appears to be the one thing that they have anticipated and prepared and trained for. It seems be their go-to solution for everything. Obviously they have no qualms at all about shooting people.

      • JdL

        Obviously they have no qualms at all about shooting people.

        That’s why everyone who cares about freedom needs to be armed against the State.

        • If it comes down to a firefight, though, you’ve already lost. They have better toys, and more of them. I would suggest that it makes more sense to speak out against them having the authority to take so many liberties at the level of policy making which would precede them even coming with the guns in an effort to enforce said policy.

          If we are going to have police, we need to have them answering to a citizens oversight rather than the same system that they are an integral part of as the police are clearly not effective in policing themselves. Also the amount of personal discretion they have in the decision to use force needs to be limited by more objective procedural guidelines that make it more black and white as to whether any action is justified or not.

          Vote. And consider the far reaching implications of the policies you support, as it is clear that many unintended consequences arise from abuse of privilege that can be mitigated if we plan for that. Also making sure that any position of power is tempered by a proportionate deterrent to abusing it would be a good idea, whereas now there seems to be little consequence for transgressions committed by anyone who has such power, and it appears to be encouraging irresponsibility in that regard. Most of all, be aware that what effects people that are not like yourself also has a potential effect on you under different circumstances, and stand by the rights of people who you may not understand or agree with, not just the policies that make you feel “safe”.

          By all means, arm yourself if you see fit, but note that one should arm themselves with knowledge before looking to the armory to save your hide. If it comes to that at all, then you haven’t been fighting the right battles. You can do more to defend your person and property with a pen and paper and the right chosen words against an enemy that requires our consent to have any power. It doesn’t happen overnight that “the State” suddenly is knocking on your door with a battering ram. It starts when we permit agents of the State to infringe upon us under the guise of protection, and give up more and more freedom with each concession to security. The only thing that ensures total security is total control.

          One has to be willing to risk something while we still have something to lose, If you wait until they have brought an army to your door and hope to shoot your way out, it won’t matter by then,

  • This Is Crap

    Fucking criminal scum thinks they own our kids…