Spunky Homeschool

Pray This Never Happens to You

Jul. 12, 2006 at 3:57 PM

Homeschooling

Update July 21 - The judge has ruled in this case.  He has determined Abraham must undergo chemotherapy.  Details here.
 
In my previous post on state involvement in the affairs of the family I stated,

When a person commits a criminal act the state intervenes - that's the line and not before... Who has the compelling interest when the government's interests conflict with the family's interest? They cannot be equal partners in family decisions. One must defer to the other. In Amercia we give deference to the liberty of the private citizen to direct their own family.
Or at least that's the way it's supposed to be. One Virginia homeschool family is discovering that this isn't always the case. Starchild Abraham Cherrix, age 16, is refusing traditional treatment to fight his cancer and instead he is opting for dietary changes and visits to a clinic in Mexico. This is the young man's second bout with Hodgins disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes. A state social worker has asked a judge to force the child to go through the conventional treatment.

In May the judge issued a temporary order finding Jay and Rose Cherrix neglectful for supporting their son's choice to pursue alternatives. Judge Jesse E. Demps also ordered the parents to share custody of Abraham with the Accomack County Department of Social Services; they face losing custody completely.

"What it boils down to is does the American family have the right to decide on the health of their child or is the government allowed to come in and determine that themselves and threaten one way or the other to split our family up?" Jay Cherrix said Tuesday night. Barry Taylor, the family's attorney, said the case had major ramifications not only in Virginia, but across the nation, when it comes to parents' rights to determine what is best for their children.

Stop and think about that for a minute. A judge in America has ordered these homeschooling parents to share custody with the state simply for making a medical decision. And possibly lose custody completely. These moral dilemmas are a natural consequence when one believes that the state has an right to be involved in the private affairs of the family.

Who is the final authority?

These parents are not doing anything criminal. It is a difference of opinion and the state consider's that neglectful. Sadly, instead of using all of their energy and resources to fight the cancer they must also fight the state. The judge will issue a written decision on July 18.

Update: I just found Abraham's website. It looks like the site is still under construction. But there is a song that tells his story. That's where I discovered they are a homeschool family. We need to rally around them and not just because they are homeschoolers. Please pass the word along. (Donation info is here.) And in the words of his father, "Pray this never happens to you."

(HT: Jacob's Academy)

Related Tags: , , , ,

3 Comments and Trackbacks

posted by Little Women on Jul. 12, 2006 at 7:18 PM

We had a similar case here in Utah a few years ago. The state eventually gave up, stating that, even if they got custody of the child, they would not be able in good conscience to force a 12yo to accept what he believed was the government poisoning him. I'm not sure what legal precedents might have been set, before that time, in one direction or the other.

However, Jehovah's Witnesses have racked up some court precedent, I think, re. blood transfusions, which should be relevant, here. I think they have won the right to refuse medical treatment, in the past.

posted by jaminacema on Jul. 13, 2006 at 2:10 AM

Thanks for posting this so we can pray for this family. Tragic.

posted by Phil on Jul. 22, 2006 at 11:05 PM

"When a person commits a criminal act the state intervenes - that's the line and not before..."

I don't want to sound insensitive to the needs of families, but from a legal standpoint, most states recognize some kind of "criminal negligence." To paint this case as a black-or-white, families-versus-government situation seems to simplify a complicated matter.

For example, a couple which failed to feed their three-year-old daughter would likely be found criminally negligent. Would it be a mitigating circumstance if the couple had fervently prayed that food would appear in the child's stomach, and believe sincerely that this method would nourish the child?

Some people will argue that no, the parents in that situation were negligent and caused the death of their child by inaction. Others will argue that the religious beliefs of the parents trump the right of the state to interfere with child-rearing decisions.

Post a comment!