The Unfair Attack on Judge Haddock:
A Liberty Perspective
By
James Scott Trimm
The tragic and senseless death of
four-year-old Leiliana Wright has created unfair vitriol against two of our
Tarrant County Family Court judges, with Judge Haddock being the target of
particularly harsh attacks.
I have taken time, over the last several
months, to look at this case in depth.
I believe I have been very fair in my investigation and
conclusions. That said, there is much in
this case that has been said based on unsubstantiated claims. In my analysis I have tried to stick to the
facts and stay away from the “he said” “she said” elements.
I want to also say that my views are very
much colored by my underlying philosophy of more freedom and less government.
I do not believe in the doctrine of a nanny
state. It is not the function of
government to prevent any bad thing from ever happening. Tragic things happen in the world, and this
was among the most tragic.
However it has been rightly said “He who exchanges
a little liberty for security will find that in the end, he no longer has
either one.”
We do not want to give the government more
power and authority over our children, while subtracting from the rights of
parents (and by extension, grandparents).
Parental rights are among the most
fundamental of our natural rights with which we were endowed by our
Creator. John Locke put it like this:
Adam was created a perfect man, his body
and mind in full possession of their strength and reason, and so was capable,
from the first instant of his being, to provide for his own support and
preservation, and govern his action according to the dictates of the law of
reason which God had implanted in him. From him the world is peopled with his
descendants, who were all born infants, weak and helpless, without knowledge or
understanding: but to supply the defects of this imperfect state, till the
improvement of growth and age hath removed them, Adam and Eve, and after them
all parents were, by the law of nature, under an obligation to preserve,
nourish, and educate the children they had begotten; not as their own
workmanship, but the workmanship of their own maker, the Almighty, to whom they
were to be accountable for them….
This is that which puts the authority into
the parents’ hands to govern the minority of their children. God hath made it
their business to employ this care on their offspring, and hath placed in them
suitable inclinations of tenderness and concern to temper this power, to apply
it, as his wisdom designed it, to the children’s good, as long as they should
need to be under it.
(John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil
Government, first published in 1690)
The United States Supreme Court has upheld
the sanctity of parental rights. In
1925 the US Supreme Court said:
The fundamental theory of liberty upon
which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the
State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from
public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those
who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high
duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.
(Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510
(1925), at 535.)
in 1972 the US Supreme Court declared:
The history and culture of Western
civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and
upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the
upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring
American tradition.
(Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972),
at 232.)
In 1979 the US Supreme Court also said:
The law’s concept of the family rests on a
presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience,
and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions. More
important, historically it has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead
parents to act in the best interests of their children...
Most children, even in adolescence, simply
are not able to make sound judgments concerning many decisions, including their
need for medical care or treatment. Parents can and must make those judgments.
(Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979), at
602-3.)
And in 2000 the Court declared that “the
liberty interest… of parents in the care, custody, and control of their
children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized
by [the] Court.” (Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), at 65.)
I fear that because a tragedy occurred,
many now ask why the government did not prevent it. But remember, it is not the government’s job to prevent any bad
thing from ever happening. And we do
not want to exchange the sanctity of parental rights for more security, even
for children.
This whole knee-jerk reaction has reminded
me of reactions to mass shootings in which the media and Democrats immediately
start using it as a talking point for gun control. I am also reminded of how much liberty and rights are stripped
from us with the excuse that it is “for the children.” I can tell you that for personal reasons, no
one is more defensive of abused children than I am.
The law in Texas rightly requires Family
Court judges to defer to an agreement reached by the parties. This is the way
we want it in Texas. We do not want the
government being proactive and overriding the rights of parents in regards to
their own children. And we do not want
judges who override the law.
This is what happened in this case. The parties reached an agreement, and Judge
Haddock followed the law in signing off on their agreement.
Yes, tragedy struck. But Judge Haddock is not at fault here. The fact that tragedy occurs does not
automatically mean that the government should have prevented it. This is a dangerous world. But in the end it is a far better world if
we preserve liberty and the natural rights of parents.
