The Anti-Intellectuality of Donald Trump: Why Ayn Rand Would Have Despised a President Trump
by Onkar Ghate | November 06, 2017
The Immigration Debate
by The Editors | April 17, 2017
Why Our Campuses Are Boiling over in Left-Wing Rage Instead of Discourse
by Steve Simpson | March 13, 2017
At Free-Speech Event, UCLA Tried to Ban My Book
by Elan Journo | February 11, 2017
One Small Step for Dictatorship: The Significance of Donald Trump’s Election
by Onkar Ghate | November 17, 2016
Ayn Rand at the Ford Hall Forum
by The Editors | June 18, 2015
Independence Day: What July 4 Really Means
by Tom Bowden | June 26, 2014
An Introduction to Objectivism
by Leonard Peikoff | 1995
Capitalism without Guilt
by Yaron Brook | January 21, 2013
How The Welfare State Stole Christmas
by Yaron Brook | December 23, 2012
A Liberal Ayn Rand?
by Onkar Ghate | November 02, 2012
Time to Read Ayn Rand?
by Keith Lockitch | October 19, 2012
Ayn Rand’s Appeal
by Onkar Ghate | August 21, 2012
Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged: A Paean to American Liberty
by Don Watkins | August 17, 2012
Happy Birthday, Ayn Rand — Why Are You Still So Misunderstood?
by Don Watkins | February 02, 2012
How Did Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged Predict an America Spinning Out of Control?
by Onkar Ghate | October 31, 2011
Atlas Shrugged: With America on the Brink, Should You “Go Galt” and Strike?
by Onkar Ghate | April 29, 2011
The Radicalness of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged
by Onkar Ghate | April 25, 2011
The Tea Party Will Fail — Unless it Fully Embraces Individualism as a Moral Ideal
by Tom Bowden | January 21, 2011
Let’s Take Back Columbus Day
by Tom Bowden | October 08, 2010
Atlas Shrugged’s Timeless Moral: Profit-Making Is Virtue, Not Vice
by Yaron Brook | July 20, 2010
Why is Ayn Rand Still Relevant: Atlas Shrugged and Today’s World
by Yaron Brook | August 10, 2009
Is Rand Relevant?
by Yaron Brook | March 14, 2009
After Ten Years, States Still Resist Assisted Suicide
by Tom Bowden | November 02, 2007
The Influence of Atlas Shrugged
by Yaron Brook | October 09, 2007
The Real Museum Looters
by Keith Lockitch | June 03, 2003
Ayn Rand's Ideas — An Introduction
by Onkar Ghate | June 02, 2003
Shame on Casey Martin
by Tom Bowden | January 31, 2001
The Joy of Football
by Tom Bowden | January 26, 2001
Whose Children Are They?
by Tom Bowden | January 05, 2000
Why Christmas Should Be More Commercial
by Leonard Peikoff | December 25, 1996
Cultural Update
by Ayn Rand | April 16, 1978
The Moral Factor
by Ayn Rand | April 11, 1976
Metaphysics in Marble
by Mary Ann Sures | February and March 1969
Of Living Death
by Ayn Rand | December 08, 1968
Our Cultural Value-Deprivation
by Ayn Rand | April 10, 1966
The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus
by Ayn Rand | April 18, 1965
Is Atlas Shrugging?
by Ayn Rand | April 19, 1964
by Ayn Rand | September 1963
Through Your Most Grievous Fault
by Ayn Rand | August 19, 1962
The “New Intellectual”
by Ayn Rand | May 15, 1961


Culture And Society in Voice for Reason
Culture & SocietyMore

Whose Children Are They?

by Tom Bowden | January 05, 2000

Do parents have the right to decide which friends or extended family their children will spend time with? That’s the specific issue in the case of Troxel v. Granville, scheduled for oral argument January 12 before the Supreme Court. It’s a topic of obvious importance to millions of families, for without the right to control who visits their children, parents cannot possibly govern their children’s upbringing.

But the case presents an even larger issue: Will the Supreme Court reaffirm that the principle of individual rights protects activities, such as child-rearing, not concretely mentioned in the Constitution? Or will the Court add the right to raise one’s children to the growing discard-pile of rights deemed unworthy of protection because the Founding Fathers did not specifically list them? Much more than parental control of visitation hinges on the Court’s choice of constitutional method.

The Troxel case actually consolidates three different disputes, all involving mothers struggling to raise their children in single-parent households, with the fathers missing or deceased. These mothers have been dragged into court by paternal grandparents  — and, in one case, by an ex-boyfriend — under a State of Washington law that permits judges to order visitation by outsiders against a parent’s express wishes if it is deemed “in the best interest of the child.”

But the right to determine a child’s best interests belongs only to its parents, by virtue of the crucial fact that it is their child, not society’s or the State’s. In the absence of demonstrable physical abuse or neglect, parents (including single parents) have the exclusive right to decide what their children will eat, where they will attend school, which morality they will be taught, and with whom they may associate.

Government may properly issue decrees in the best interests of a child only when both parents have relinquished their decision-making rights, as happens for example when a divorcing couple irreconcilably disagrees about where a child should live or attend school. However, the State of Washington law (like similar laws in many other states) improperly dispenses with the requirement of such a forfeiture, thereby making all parental decisions regarding visitation subject to an override by the courts.

Once this collectivist principle is established in law, there is nothing but time and agony between our society and the collectivist hell envisioned millennia ago by the philosopher Plato, who proposed that children be placed at birth in communal houses and brought up according to the wisdom of the community, never even knowing their parents.

Supreme Court precedent supports parents who seek to resist arbitrary governmental control of their children. In the 1923 case of Meyer v. Nebraska, the Court struck down a State law enacted just after World War I that had forbidden the teaching of foreign languages to young children. Rejecting the State’s collectivist premise that such teachings “inculcate in [children] the ideas and sentiments foreign to the best interests of this country,” the Court held that the constitutional right to life and liberty includes, by logical implication, a couple’s right to marry, raise children, and “control the education of their own.”

Two years later, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the Court struck down an Oregon statute that had effectively outlawed private schools by making public school attendance mandatory. Holding that the law interfered with “the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control,” the Court declared that the “child is not the mere creature of the State.”

Applying similar logic, the Supreme Court of Washington last year held the statute in the Troxel case unconstitutional. It stated that “parents have a right to limit visitation of their children with third persons” and that “to suggest otherwise would be the logical equivalent to asserting that the state has the authority to break up stable families and redistribute its infant population to provide each child with the ‘best family.’”

Will the U.S. Supreme Court likewise affirm that the constitutional right to life and liberty includes the right of parents to raise their children without interference from the State? If so, then the three courageous mothers from the State of Washington will have scored an important victory in the battle for individual rights in America.

About The Author

Tom Bowden

Analyst and Outreach Liaison, Ayn Rand Institute